Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The officials did not show any intent to allow indiscriminate use by student reporters, editors, or other students, and so were entitled to regulate the paper's contents in any reasonable manner (Hazelwood pp). The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that occurs on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to "lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression" (Hazelwood pp). Thus, educators are not offending First Amendment rights 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," and in this case the school principal acted reasonably in requiring the deletion of the pregnancy article, the divorce article and the other articles that appeared on the same pages (Hazelwood pp). The principal acted from the need to protect the privacy of those students whose intimate concerns were to be revealed in the newspaper, and "the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within a school community"...
Moreover, the principal's decision to delete two pages from the newspaper rather than deleting only on the offending articles or require modification, was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them (Hazelwood pp).
The dissenting opinion declared that the students who registered for Journalism II expected a civics lesson and to publish a newspaper that was a forum to give students an opportunity to express their view which gaining an appreciation of their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment and as a student press publication, it accepts all rights implied by the First Amendment (Hazelwood pp).
This case is important because it states that a student publication is not a public forum for student expression as it applies in the First Amendment unless otherwise stated by school policy, and so is subject to censorship by the discretion of school officials.
Works Cited
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. No. 86-836. Supreme Court of the United States. 484 U.S. 260. January 13, 1988.
Works Cited
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. No. 86-836. Supreme Court of the United States. 484 U.S. 260. January 13, 1988.
What this amounted to was a reasonableness test. As long as an educator's actions were reasonable related to retaining order in school, then an educator could censor a school-sponsored publication. Reynolds had legitimate reasons for censoring the articles. He was concerned that anonymous sources would be identifiable from the context of one of the articles, and that could lead to disruptions in the classroom. He was also concerned about
S. constitution grants its citizens the right of freedom of speech but this freedom is not available in absolute terms. Many a times schools & educational institutions exercise control in different affairs related to its curricula, extra curricular activities and even in-house publications. The administration however can not take this exception for granted and have to prove that their control does not blatantly impinge upon the rights given to students
D. joined the Majority. Justices Blackmun, H.A. And Powell, L.F. wrote a special and regular concurrence respectively. In addition to voting with the majority, O'Connor S.D. joined Powel's concurrence. Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Stevens, J.P. filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, T. And Brennan, W.J joined. Brennan also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which Marshall T. joined. Case 5 Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) Argued: March 29, 2000 Date
The student journalists sued, citing the Tinker standard (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988). The issue in this case, while similar to those of Tinker and Fraser, differed in that the question was not about "obviously inappropriate" language, or about viewpoint discrimination. Instead, the issue was whether a school official had the right to censor school-sponsored publications if they believe the material is inappropriate for some students, or that the
Caselaw.findlaw.com);in Guiles v. Marineau (2006) (No. 05-0327 2nd Cir. Court) the Court of Appeals ruled that the school "violated a student's free speech" by disciplining him for wearing a T-shirt that criticized George W. Bush and used images of drugs and alcohol (www.NSBA.org);Roberts alluded to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (No. 86-836) (484 U.S. 260) (1988), in which a student newspaper was censored because of an article on pregnancy, as justification for
Here, the Plaintiff and all of the members of the God Squad were arrested and removed from school property by police. The police acted on probable cause that the group was inciting violence on school property after observing their offensive and disruptive behavior. Additionally, the Plaintiff was given an arraignment, charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace, and inciting a riot, and was released on bail to the custody of his parents.