Hazelwood School District Vs. Kuleimer

I have supported the dominant part assessment of this choice because of the way that the school had supported the daily paper. I trust this gives the school the correct motivations to evacuate the pages, and the way of the articles doesn't help the case much either. These articles most unquestionably would have been an ungainliness and extremely diverting to the understudies too. Since these articles had sullied the rights and prosperity of others, it was of everyone's highest intrigue the articles were evacuated. I agreed with a slacked understanding in this circumstance. Although understudies hold rights, some of the time there is a circumstance where particular rights ought to be controlled to stay away from interruptions inside

Ellsworth, J. E. (1988). Censorship in secondary school newspapers: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. BYU Journal of Public Law, 2, 291–306.

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

Lago Vista Independent School Distict. Gebser and her teacher had a sexual relationship that lasted for almost 2 years. The two were caught in the middle of having relations. The teacher was arrested by the local police department and his license were revoked by the state. Gebser never notified administrators or staff about the relationship between her and the teacher. Her parents tried to file a case on the school district for damages and monetary payment. The court ruled in favor of the school district. This case was very interesting and unique in many ways. I support the decision of the court on no to reward the victim monetary payment. Gebser never tried to notify anyone about the situation, it was more so enjoyment for her. This school district was very proactive and moved very quickly after finding out the

In this case, the Principal of Hazelwood east high, Principal Reynolds, reviewed the school paper before it was published. He thought two articles were inappropriate for school, one on some of the student’s pregnancies and experiences while pregnant, and one person’s experiences through her parent’s divorce. ("Facts and Case Summary: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier."1 ) Even though all of the names were changed, the principal was worried that the students may be identified. Also, the father in the divorce article was not reached for comment, so the article had not been unbiased, as should be expected in a newspaper.("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier"1) The principal removed these articles, causing the paper to miss a

The issue of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD was that students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War; however the school warned that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended, but the Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended leading to Mr. and Mrs. Tinker filing a law suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech." In the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that prayers in schools were considered unconstitutional, leading to a ban of all prayers led by teachers in school, even if the prayer was considered voluntary, stating, in a way, that there was some sort of “separation of church and state” which is not true. Lastly, New York Times v. Sullivan focused more on the freedom of the press, ruling that “actual malice” must be proven to support a finding of libel against a public figure.

The majority opinion included the fact that the principle acted correctly since the rights of the other students’ in the articles were in question of being violated; moreover, they did not believe that the Tinker standard applied to this case. In the Tinker case, personal expression was by students’ rather than over a school newspaper they wrote; the unorthodox opinion, though, felt that the Tinker standard did actually apply to this case. The opposition claimed while the articles are from a school newspaper, they still reflect personal student views; then the opposition went on to express growing concern for allowing the restriction in this case, because they believed it would lead to big infringements on First Amendment

The following day, the third student protester followed suit and ended up suspended. The students’ parents sued the school district based on violation of the students’ right of expression. The parents also sought to have the disciplinary action upheld.

Paraphrase or Summary:“the Court ruled that students’ were not violated when a school principal censored two student articles on controversial topics -- pregnancy and divorce -- in the school newspaper, The

“Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier raised the question of whether the principal of Hazelwood East High School, near St. Louis, violated the First Amendment rights of his students by deleting two pages of the Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper that was produced in a school journalism course. A journalism adviser, who supervised the Spectrum’s staff, submitted each edition to the principal for review, prior to publication. In May 1983, a substitute was advising the newspaper because the regular journalism

Following the Hazelwood decision of 1988, school officials such as principles were given the right to censor student publications and practice prior review; reading the articles before they are published. Many school officials fortunately refrain from using their ability to do so. Sadly, nearly one third of journalism students and teachers have reported administrative censorship over their content