Kallie Fisher
Precsott
Civics
23 May, 2017
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Would you agree the statement that,“First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw)? Or would you agree that, “If mere incompatibility with the school's...message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could [ultimately] strangle the free mind at its source” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw)? The Supreme Court agreed with both. The case of Hazelwood School …show more content…
The students claimed the school had broken their first amendment rights of freedom of expression (speech and press). The first amendment says that,”Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech…”(U.S. Constitution. Amend. I.) Yet there are some regulations. The government can interfere or attempt to regulate free speech as long as they have substantial justification. Also, the level of protection speech receives depends on the forum in which it takes place. The Supreme Court says that there are three kinds of forums: traditional public forums, designated/limited forums, and nonpublic forums (Staff, LII ). The court was correct by deciding that “The Spectrum” was not a public forum. School facilities are only public forums if they are opened to be by school authorities. Since the newspaper was never opened to be a public forum, and was only part of a classroom activity under the teacher’s control, school authorities were entitled to have editorial control over the paper("Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw) . The school’s principal also had legitimate justification for why he removed the students content. He reasoned that the pregnancy article should not be included in the final paper because,” the pregnant students, although not named, might be identified from the text, and because he believed that the article's references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students,”("Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw). Also he reasoned that the divorce article should be removed because,” the page proofs he was furnished identified by name (deleted by the teacher from the final version) a student who complained of her father's conduct, and the principal believed that the student's parents should have been given an opportunity to respond to the remarks or to consent to their publication” ("Hazelwood School District v.
Precsott
Civics
23 May, 2017
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Would you agree the statement that,“First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw)? Or would you agree that, “If mere incompatibility with the school's...message were a constitutionally sufficient justification for the suppression of student speech, school officials could [ultimately] strangle the free mind at its source” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw)? The Supreme Court agreed with both. The case of Hazelwood School …show more content…
The students claimed the school had broken their first amendment rights of freedom of expression (speech and press). The first amendment says that,”Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech…”(U.S. Constitution. Amend. I.) Yet there are some regulations. The government can interfere or attempt to regulate free speech as long as they have substantial justification. Also, the level of protection speech receives depends on the forum in which it takes place. The Supreme Court says that there are three kinds of forums: traditional public forums, designated/limited forums, and nonpublic forums (Staff, LII ). The court was correct by deciding that “The Spectrum” was not a public forum. School facilities are only public forums if they are opened to be by school authorities. Since the newspaper was never opened to be a public forum, and was only part of a classroom activity under the teacher’s control, school authorities were entitled to have editorial control over the paper("Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw) . The school’s principal also had legitimate justification for why he removed the students content. He reasoned that the pregnancy article should not be included in the final paper because,” the pregnant students, although not named, might be identified from the text, and because he believed that the article's references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students,”("Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier." Findlaw). Also he reasoned that the divorce article should be removed because,” the page proofs he was furnished identified by name (deleted by the teacher from the final version) a student who complained of her father's conduct, and the principal believed that the student's parents should have been given an opportunity to respond to the remarks or to consent to their publication” ("Hazelwood School District v.