Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier Case Study

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

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.

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

Newspaper reporting is all about finding stories that will appeal to readers. Journalists try to uncover the real situations and problems that affect those readers and write the truth. What if writers were forbidden to write these articles? It may sound like something that could never happen in America, where citizens’ freedom of speech is protected, but the reality is that it is happening. In schools around the country, student newspapers are being censored and their stories yanked out or manipulated to reflect biased opinions. Uncensored journalism in school is necessary because it teaches the First Amendment, it allows kids to fight the wrongs in their world, and it keeps school faculty from having to fight for students’ articles.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

Should a school be able to censor their students? This question has reached the supreme court multiple times, such as in this case, or in Tinker vs. Des Moines. While restricting a freedom may be annoying, it can be necessary, but when is it dictatorship, and when is it necessary? That is what is questioned in this court case. The U.S. Supreme Court had a difficult decision in the court case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, and they were right in their ruling, because even though censorship is often overused, in the classroom, it is often needed, and though the fear of a dictatorship in any place is often scary, it is needed in a classroom full of rowdy minors, even in my experience many of my classmates have inappropriate outbursts.

Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding: Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers. The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. The case concerned the censorship of two articles in The Spectrum, the student newspaper of Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri, 1983. When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students.(wiki) In a 5–3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision, determining that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored

Facts: Stephen R. Newton (Newton) was an employee of Henderson City as a police officer. Newton had been assigned to the DEA in October 1987 until he resigned in 1991. Newton claims he was not compensated for all the overtime hours he worked as a Task Force Officer. The city of Henderson entered an agreement with the DEA to remain Newton’s employer consequently rendering them responsible for “establishing the salary benefits including overtime of the Henderson Police Department officer assigned to the Task Force, and making all payments due.” Prior to 1990, Newton had not received authority from the City to work any overtime.

MILLERSBURG — A Millersburg area man on Tuesday denied being in possession of firearms as he fled the scene where he was allegedly stalking a donut delivery driver.

I, Andrew Coble, write this opinion to dissent with the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

When it comes to expression, a school may place limitations on clothes or actions if they are deemed disruptive. Notably in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, students who wished to present their newspaper to the school were forbidden by the principal as it involved names and situations that could disrupt learning. The club sued the school, claiming it was limiting freedom of speech and press. In Article II of Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier states, “We hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising control over

I support the majority opinion of this decision because the school had sponsored the newspaper. This provides the school authority to eliminate anything they believe would be a distraction to the learning environment. The content of the articles doesn't help the case at all. The articles deliver a sensitive subject among the students that may make others uncomfortable. I believe everyone would greatly appreciate is they were removed.

An upcoming issue in the paper was set to have articles pertaining to teen pregnancy and how kids responded to divorce. The principal then voiced concern because he believe the content was to mature for students and isolating for students that may be pregnant. He then removed the articles from the paper because of his disapproval. Three students then filed claims that their First Amendment rights were violated. The issue brought before the Court was whether the school had a right to censor the publications just for the fact that they disagree with the content (First,

Young journalists in schools around America feel like they are being denied their first amendment. In Ocean Lake high school 2 out of 5 school papers aren't published. Censorship issues have been going on for years. The "Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier" Supreme Court case, in 1988, states that students cannot be censored by student officials if they have established the paper as a public forum(Innterobang/2007/3). Two of the articles were about teen pregnancy in, which he interviewed some, and Parent divorce. The articles were thrown out because there was no time to edit it, in which lead to the students claiming their first amendment was violated. If the paper receives any funding from the school, the school can have special guide lines the paper has to follow. Some of the rules are understandable like promoting drugs, hate articles, and much more shouldn't be in a school paper.

At first the notion was put down, but once it was explained further more, a moment of silence was viewed as appropriate if it had a real purpose to it. All in all it is appropriate to have a moment of silence for those who lost their lives due to the terrorist attack on 9/11. In the diagram, it is shown that as time has passed, less people would rather have pray in school over a moment of silence. The numbers were practically evenly switched in the matter of a ten year period from 1995 to 2010.