For UNO's Communication Law and Policy during the 2017 Semester.

1. College and High School
Student Speech Regulation
James Hill

2. Why is student speech so complicated?
❖In the words of Avril Lavinge, “Why the hell did the have
to make things so complicated?”
❖Student’s do not “shed their constitutional rights to
freedom of expression of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate.” (Tinker 1969)
❖School Officials may regulate student speech if there is
a valid reason to do so.

3. Most influential cases regarding Student speech
❖Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.
❖Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist.
❖Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser

4. Overview of cases
❖Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.
➢ John and Mary Beth Tinker along with Christopher Eckhardt wore black
armbands during school as a form of silent protest of the Vietnam
War. There was a school policy against wearing armbands. The student
were sent home after they refused to remove them.
➢ The Supreme Court ruled that symbolic forms of speech can only be
punished if school officials could prove the student’s expression
would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline
of school.” (Tinker 1969)

5. Cont.
❖Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist.
➢ The school paper, the Spectrum, produced two “controversial” stories. One was
about three unnamed teens discussing their pregnancies. The other was about
unnamed students describing how their lives have been affected by their parents
divorces. Hazelwood’s principal cut these stories because they might invade the
privacy of students’ and parents’.
➢ The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided the Spectrum may be part of the
curriculum but it also a public form. It decided the school had no substantial
reason to censor those stories.
➢ Supreme Court later overturned this decision. The Court stated that a
high school setting is very different from those of college and the
greater society. Stressed school’s obligation to educate the youth.

6. Cont.
❖Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser
➢ Student, Matthew Fraser, made several sexual innuendos during a
school-sponsored speech and was suspended. The federal and appellate
courts ruled in favor of Fraser because his speech was not
substantially disruptive. The Supreme Court disagreed.
➢ Since the speech was not political in nature, Tinker did not apply.
The Court stated first, school officials have more control of school-
sponsored events than than what student say in the halls and
secondly, school officials should see that public education should
instill moral values.

7. ❖Like for all citizens, political speech is protected the
most.
❖School officials may censor and control the student’s
expression if they can reasonably prove the expression
would have disrupted school activities or is plainly lewd
in nature.
❖School papers/events may so be regulated by school
administrators.
Conclusion