Main content Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Two of the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy. The teenage pregnancy article featured stories in which pregnant students at Hazelwood East shared their experiences. The school principal felt that the subjects of these two articles were inappropriate.
In Tinker, several students were suspended for wearing black armbands that protested against the Vietnam War.
Fraser[ edit ] Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office.
The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenities. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "the process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order".
Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that "consciously or otherwise, teachers—and indeed the older students—demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class".
Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent, or plainly offensive. Kuhlmeier[ edit ] Main article: Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum.
Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
Frederick[ edit ] Main article: Frederick blends Fraser and Hazelwood, applying them to a school-sanctioned event or activity.
The banner was in plain view of other students. The high school principal seized the banner and suspended Frederick because the banner was perceived to advocate the use of illegal drugs.
In Hazelwood, the Court began its analysis by examining whether the student newspaper at issue was a limited public forum. Hazelwood, U.S. at , ashio-midori.com This is the proper threshold question because speech in a limited public forum is less susceptible to regulation by the state. 3 As the Court concluded in Hazelwood. Mike Hiestand, attorney and legal consultant for the Student Press Law Center, said the bill would turn back the clock on the Hazelwood decision to the less-strict Tinker standard. That standard arose from a U.S. Supreme Court case in Des Moines, Iowa, in , Tinker v. This article presents a different view of the Hazelwood decision than the Abrams and Goodman article in the same edition (cited above). Hafen agrees with the Court's decision to allow school authorities greater leeway in controlling student expression.
The Supreme Court held that a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Not only was a school activity involved, but the banner's promotion of illegal drugs was contrary to the school's policy or mission to prevent student drug abuse.
School-specific factors[ edit ] The right of free speech is not itself absolute:This article presents a different view of the Hazelwood decision than the Abrams and Goodman article in the same edition (cited above). Hafen agrees with the Court's decision to allow school authorities greater leeway in controlling student expression.
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Kuhlmeier upheld the right of a public high school to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children.
Since then, states have been passing “anti. In January , the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case Hazelwood School District ashio-midori.com Court upheld the decision of public high school administrators at Hazelwood East High School in suburban St.
Louis, Mo., to censor stories concerning teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children from a school-sponsored student newspaper. Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled that Hazelwood was correct in removing the articles as the rights of students "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings" and a school doesn't need to tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with .
Lower Court Ruling: Held: The decision of the principal to prohibit the publishing of certain student articles deemed to be inappropriate violates the student journalists' First Amendment free speech rights.
Supreme Court Ruling: Held: Reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit. The decision of the school principal to prohibit the publishing of certain articles deemed to be inappropriate does not violate the .