Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Students filed suit seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and a declaration that their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated after their journalism teacher censored articles written by students in a school-supervised school newspaper. The District Court upheld the school’s regulation because it had a substantial and reasonable basis. The Eighth Circuit Appellate Court reversed, holding that the newspaper was part of the school curriculum but also a public forum where school officials could not censor its contents without showing it was necessary to avoid substantial and material infringement with school work or discipline.
FACTS: Two articles written by students, on divorce and teen pregnancy, were censored from a school-sponsored newspaper written within a journalism course. Students filed suit alleging that their First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed.
ISSUE: May educators exercise 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?
HOLDING: Yes, educators may exercise 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.
ANALYSIS: The Court found that the school newspaper was not a “public forum†because it had not been open to indiscriminate use by students. The Court held that educators are entitled to exercise greater control over the speech in Kuhlmeier than the speech in Tinker because it “may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum.†The principal upheld the censorship upon concluding that the anonymity of students discussed in the articles was not adequately protected and the article was not sufficiently sensitive to the privacy interests of the students’ boyfriends and parents who were discussed in the article but who were given no opportunity to consent to its publication or to offer a response. Because the students “had not sufficiently mastered those portions of the Journalism II curriculum that pertained to†the treatment of controversial issues, personal attacks, or the need to protect the privacy of individuals mentioned in the paper, the Court upheld the school’s regulation of student speech.
484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Students filed suit seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and a declaration that their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated after their journalism teacher censored articles written by students in a school-supervised school newspaper. The District Court upheld the school’s regulation because it had a substantial and reasonable basis. The Eighth Circuit Appellate Court reversed, holding that the newspaper was part of the school curriculum but also a public forum where school officials could not censor its contents without showing it was necessary to avoid substantial and material infringement with school work or discipline.
FACTS: Two articles written by students, on divorce and teen pregnancy, were censored from a school-sponsored newspaper written within a journalism course. Students filed suit alleging that their First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed.
ISSUE: May educators exercise 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?
HOLDING: Yes, educators may exercise 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.
ANALYSIS: The Court found that the school newspaper was not a “public forum†because it had not been open to indiscriminate use by students. The Court held that educators are entitled to exercise greater control over the speech in Kuhlmeier than the speech in Tinker because it “may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum.†The principal upheld the censorship upon concluding that the anonymity of students discussed in the articles was not adequately protected and the article was not sufficiently sensitive to the privacy interests of the students’ boyfriends and parents who were discussed in the article but who were given no opportunity to consent to its publication or to offer a response. Because the students “had not sufficiently mastered those portions of the Journalism II curriculum that pertained to†the treatment of controversial issues, personal attacks, or the need to protect the privacy of individuals mentioned in the paper, the Court upheld the school’s regulation of student speech.