For Fall 2019 Communication and Law Final research paper

1. Regulating Student
Expression Under the First
Amendment
By: Kami Fox

2. Brief Legal History
 Unpopular views of protection of student expression had its
first clear demonstration during 1943 in WestVirginia Board
of Education v. Barnette.
 Tinker v. Des Moines IndependentSchool District in 1969 was
1969 was the first case to have significant impact on student
expressive rights.
 Put forth a key legal test requiring school officials to reasonably
predict material as invasive of the rights of others.
 Public colleges have strongest First Amendment protection
in the school systems.

3. Four Major Supreme Court
DecisionsTinker v. Des Moines Independent School
School District (1969)
Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
(1988)
Morse v. Frederick (2007)

4. Recent Case
Law
Education Media Co. at Virginia Tech v. Insley (2006)
 The Alcoholic Beverage Control filed lawsuit againstVirginia
Tech’s Educational Media Co. because of printed alcohol
advertisement in school paper.
 Educational Media argued it was a violation of their freedom of
speech/press rights under the First Amendment
 After many re-openings of the case, court ruled in favor of
VirginiaTech’s Media Co. after using the four Central Hudson
prongs.

5. Statute Law Conclusions
Despite U.S. Supreme Court decisions, California was
the first state to enact a state statute law to protect
their students’ free press rights.
Since California’s decision, as of July 2018:
-14 states have enacted legal protections for high school students
-9 states now have statutes that provide state law protections to
public college and university students

6. Future Legal Questions
How is media (online activity,
social media, etc.) Expression
regulated within college
students?
Do universities have control
over what a student can
publicly post regarding the
school itself?

7. References
 Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
 Educ. Media Co. at Virginia Tech v. Insley, 731F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2013).
 Goodman, M., (2019) Regulating Student Expression (p. 119-124), in Communication and
the Law, 2019 Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, AL: Vision Press.
 Fernandes, Michelle. Note: party foul: the fourth circuit’s improper application of the
commercial speech test in educational media co. At virginia tech, inc. V. Swecker.
Fordham Law Review, 80, 1325. Retrieved from:
 https://advance-lexis-com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/api/document?collection=analytical-
materials&id=urn:contentItem:54GH-RT00-02BN-012K-00000-00&context=1516831.
 Kerr, Robert., (2019) Regulating Advertising (p. 125-140), in Communication and the Law,
2019 Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, AL: Vision Press.
 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
 Newkirk, R. Vann (2016, April 7). A Free-Speech Debate Devoid of Facts. The Atlantic.
Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/first-amendment-
college-campus-millennials/477171/.
 Pennsylvania Unlawful Advertisement Statute, 47 P.S. Liquor § 4-498 (2019).
 Schafer, Rob. Proposed Policy Underscores University’s Commitment to Free Expression.
(2018). Omaha, NE. Retrieved from:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_g
uide/reference_list_author_authors.html
 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393. U.S. 503 (1969).
 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, U.S. 624 (1943).