Student Speech in Schools Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier SS.7.C.3.12 Analyze the significance and outcomes of landmark Supreme Court cases including, but not limited to…Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Student Speech in Schools http://studentfreespeechrights.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/0/5/28055695/7431519.jpg?538

Are our rights unlimited? Unlimited Rights?

Are our rights unlimited? NO! Our rights are limited in order to: Keep people safe Promote the common good Protect the rights of others FIRE!

Protecting the Rights of Others My rights end… …where your rights begin.

First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhlmeier The Case of the School Newspaper http://studentfreespeechrights.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/0/5/28055695/7431519.jpg?538 Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhlmeier

Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhlmeier The student editors of the Spectrum, a school newspaper, created an issue that included articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students in the school. The principal found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be removed from the publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other Hazelwood students brought the case to court.

Hazelwood: A Case Through the Courts Appeal U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals: Held that a First Amendment violation had occurred; the principal’s actions were not constitutional. Appeal Federal District Court: Held that no First Amendment violation had occurred; the principal’s actions were constitutional. The Federal Courts

Question before the Court: Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

Outcome: Hazelwood S.D. v. Kuhlmeier No. 5-3 The US Supreme Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. A school need not tolerate speech that is inconsistent with its educational mission. The case was heard by 8 justices because Justice Powell had retired that summer. His seat was still vacant because of a failed nomination. The seat would later be filled by Anthony Kennedy a month after the case was decided.

Quoting the Case “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Justice Byron White, 484 US 260 (1988) http://studentfreespeechrights.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/0/5/28055695/7431519.jpg?538

Significance Speech can be limited when it is disruptive or inconsistent with the educational mission of the school.