The article did not contain graphic accounts of sexual activity. 1450, 1459 (ED Mo.1985), and in a later meeting he deemed them simply "inappropriate, personal, sensitive and unsuitable for the newspaper," ibid. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731, distinguished. The Board of Education allocated funds from its annual budget for the printing of Spectrum. In a landmark 7-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the students, holding that “a prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In the majority opinion, Justice Abe Fortas argued that if the government were to allow an institution to curtail students from taking part in this form of speech, which neither disrupts nor causes harm to the school or other students, then it is “[strangling] the free mind at its source and [teaching] youth to discount important principles of [the] government as mere platitudes.”. . Yet the District Court specifically found that the principal "did not, as a matter of principle, oppose discussion of said topi[c] in Spectrum." 686, 691, 98 L.Ed.

Stergos left Hazelwood East to take a job in private industry on April 29, 1983, when the May 13 edition of Spectrum was nearing completion, and petitioner Emerson took his place as newspaper adviser for the remaining weeks of the term. The school principal, without prior consultation or explanation, excised six articles—comprising two full pages—of the May 13, 1983, issue of Spectrum. 992, 1003, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104, 89 S.Ct. Leslie D. Edwards, St. Louis, Mo., for respondents. Ante, at 271 (footnote omitted). The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.

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." 675, 683, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967).

Critics claim that Hazelwood “has essentially created scholastic journalism goals that are different from professional journalism standards.” Mark Goodman, a professor at Kent State University, said, “School officials who are not legally obligated to have the least concern about quality journalism can justify their acts of censorship independent of quality journalism concerns.” In response to these fears, some state governments have passed laws that establish greater protections for student journalists. Understandably, neither court below so limited the passage. "Any yardstick less exacting than [that] could result in school officials curtailing speech at the slightest fear of disturbance," 795 F.2d, at 1376, a prospect that would be completely at odds with this Court's pronouncement that the "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough [even in the public school context] to overcome the right to freedom of expression."

HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Petitioners v. Cathy KUHLMEIER et al. When the young men and women of Hazelwood East High School registered for Journalism II, they expected a civics lesson. expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school." "[T]hey learned of the deletions when the paper was released. It also inculcates in tomorrow's leaders the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system. . Cf.

Free student expression undoubtedly sometimes interferes with the effectiveness of the school's pedagogical functions. The court found that Principal Reynolds' concern that the pregnant students' anonymity would be lost and their privacy invaded was "legitimate and reasonable," given "the small number of pregnant students at Hazelwood East and several identifying characteristics that were disclosed in the article." .

This case arose when the Hazelwood East administration breached its own promise, dashing its students' expectations. " Ante, at 267 (quoting 478 U.S., at 683, 106 S.Ct., at 3164). 22. Accordingly, the court held that school officials had violated respondents' First Amendment rights by deleting the two pages of the newspaper. . Only speech that 'materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline' can be found unacceptable and therefore prohibited."

And, as the Court of Appeals correctly reasoned, whatever journalistic impropriety these articles may have contained, they could not conceivably be tortious, much less criminal. to Pet. As you were browsing www.whitepages.com something about your browser made us think you were a bot. The Court does not, for it cannot, purport to discern from our precedents the distinction it creates. 247, 252, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960)). School officials did not evince either "by policy or by practice," Perry Education Assn., 460 U.S., at 47, 103 S.Ct., at 956, any intent to open the pages of Spectrum to "indiscriminate use," ibid., by its student reporters and editors, or by the student body generally. Ante, at 271. The court held that Reynolds' action was also justified "to avoid the impression that [the school] endorses the sexual norms of the subjects" and to shield younger students from exposure to unsuitable material. If he did, a fact that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found, the lesson was lost on all but the psychic Spectrum staffer. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104, 89 S.Ct. 1213 (1940), tolerate speech that "tempt[s] [the listener] to throw [the speaker] off the street," id., at 309, 60 S.Ct., at 906, public educators must accommodate some student expression even if it offends them or offers views or values that contradict those the school wishes to inculcate. It is because student speech in the noncurricular context is less likely to disrupt materially any legitimate pedagogical purpose. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, high school students in a journalism class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri sued the school district after the journalism teacher and school principal removed two articles that they deemed inappropriate from the school-sponsored student paper, The Spectrum. Accordingly, no violation of First Amendment rights occurred.9, The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is therefore. . The educator may, under Tinker, constitutionally "censor" poor grammar, writing, or research because to reward such expression would "materially disrup[t]" the newspaper's curricular purpose. . 2326, 2337, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). This Court applied the Tinker test just a Term ago in Fraser, supra, upholding an official decision to discipline a student for delivering a lewd speech in support of a student-government candidate. The public schools do not possess all of the attributes of streets, parks, and other traditional public forums that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In my view the principal broke more than just a promise. The school officials in this case did not deviate from their policy that the newspaper's production was to be part of the educational curriculum and a regular classroom activity under the journalism teacher's control as to almost every aspect of publication. But the principal never consulted the students before censoring their work. Recent Historical Stories on Constitution Daily, Remembering the first black Cabinet member, On this day, the first woman is directly elected to the Senate, 10 essential facts about Alexander Hamilton on his birthday. He felt the articles compromised the privacy of the students, even though the students names were changed in the article itself.

The First Amendment permits no such blanket censorship authority. See id., at 802-803, 105 S.Ct., at 3449-3450 (citing Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S., at 267, 102 S.Ct., at 273; Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167, 174, n. 6, 97 S.Ct. Ibid. He did not so much as inquire into obvious alternatives, such as precise deletions or additions (one of which had already been made), rearranging the layout, or delaying publication. . Reynolds was concerned that, although the pregnancy story used false names "to keep the identity of these girls a secret," the pregnant students still might be identifiable from the text.

"The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse."