Two of the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy.
This portion of the Statement does not, of course, even accurately reflect our holding in Tinker. That is not because some more stringent standard applies in the curricular context.
These circumstances included the very recent [ U. Caso filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal. Edwards argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
We nonetheless agree with the District Court that the decision to excise the two pages containing the problematic articles was reasonable given the particular circumstances of this case.
University of Missouri Board of Curators, U. As a result of this variance, the public school and their attached rules will govern over what can be produced by any publication associated with the school. Reynolds could reasonably have concluded that the students who had written and edited these articles had not sufficiently mastered those portions of the Journalism II curriculum that pertained to the treatment of controversial issues and personal attacks, the need to protect the privacy of individuals whose most intimate concerns are to be revealed in the newspaper, and "the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within [a] school community" that includes adolescent subjects and readers.
II Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Ante, at citation omitted.
The Court does not, for it cannot, purport to discern from our precedents the distinction it creates. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government.
Otherwise, the schools would be unduly constrained from fulfilling their role as "a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.
In Tinker, this Court struck the balance. Furthermore, the court concluded that Reynolds was justified in deleting two full pages of the newspaper, instead of deleting only the pregnancy and divorce stories or requiring that those stories be modified to address his concerns, based on his "reasonable belief that he had to make an immediate decision and that there was no time to make modifications to the articles in question.
He objected to some material in two articles, but excised six entire articles. But the principal never consulted the students before censoring their work. Nor has this Court ever intimated a distinction between personal and school-sponsored speech in any other context.
Tinker fully addresses the first concern; the second is illegitimate; and the third is readily achievable through less oppressive means.
Accordingly, we have traditionally reserved [ U. Yet the District Court specifically found that the principal "did not, as a matter of principle, oppose discussion of said topi[c] in Spectrum. With him on the briefs were John Gianoulakis and Robert T.
He did not so much as inquire into obvious alternatives, such as precise deletions or additions one of which had already been maderearranging the layout, or delaying publication.
The first case in the new trend, Bethel School District v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in Kincaid v.
After discovering news stories reflecting teen pregnancy and divorce — albeit attributed with pseudonyms in order to allow the subject of the piece to retain anonymity — the Principal mandated that those specific news stories were a violation of the privacy of the student about whom the story was written; he continued, by stating that the story neither sufficiently protected the identity of the student nor allowed for dissenting opinion due to the presumed anonymity within the news story — the editors of the paper cited that the Principal had violated their respective 1st Amendment rights.Hazelwood East High School Principal Robert Reynolds procedurally reviewed the Spectrum, the school’s student-written newspaper, before publication.
In Mayhe decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two of the articles, and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier; Supreme Court of the United States. Argued October 13, The Hazelwood case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. No. Argued October 13, This case arose when the Hazelwood East administration breached its own promise, dashing its students' expectations.
such as literary criticism, school sports, or an overview of the school year. Unlike those determinate limitations, "potential topic sensitivity.
View this case and other resources at: Citation. U.S.S. Ct.98 L. Ed. 2dU.S. Brief Fact Summary. A school principal. A case in which the Court held that the principal's right to censor articles from the student-written school newspaper was not an infringement of the students' First Amendment rights.
Oyez. About; "Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Oyez, 11 Sep. The Background of Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier () Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’.Download