This document discusses censorship of student publications and free speech rights in schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier which found schools can censor school-sponsored student media, but not underground or off-campus student media. It also discusses how schools can regulate the time, place and manner of distributing underground publications but not the content. The document analyzes other court cases related to religious publications, internet speech, and funding of religious student groups.

1. You can’t tell me what to write! William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Censorship of Student Publication

2. The First Amendment The First Amendment to the united State Constitution is part of the united State Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United Sates Congress form making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

3. In the First Amendment the founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to sensor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.

4. Freedom of the press in the public schools, however, is governed by a different set of constitutional precedents. Regulations of the students newspapers is subject to the Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

5. Four Categories of Litigations Concerning Publications School-sponsored newspapers Nonschool, or underground, newspapers written and distributed by students Materials distributed by students at school but written and published by nonstudents Internet

6. School Sponsored Hazelwood decision permitted the school to control or censor a school-sponsored paper. Nonschool publications may be regulated only by time, place, and manner of distribution; they cannot be regulated as to content. These restrictions are contingent upon the school having created a limited public forum as opposed to a nonpublic or closed forum. In Hazelwood – the court said that the school paper (theatrical productions, and other expression perceived to “bear the imprimatur”) was not a public forum.

12. Articles references to birth control and sexual activity were inappropriate for some younger students

14. Internet and Free Speech Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District Beussink claims that the Woodland School District suspended hem from school for ten days because he had posted a homepage on the Internet which was critical of Woodland High School. The homepage's criticism of the high school included crude and vulgar language.

17. The harm to the student is greater than that to the district if the injunction is not granted.

19. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) Wide-Awake Productions was denied funding for its newspaper, Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia, because it “primarily promotes a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality” The University unlike most used its Student Activities Fund to pay the printing cost not the university’s funds.

20. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)(School Editorials) Decision of the Court: Ruled as unconstitutional student organization funding systems in which some student organization expression (e.g., publications, speakers, posters) was paid for by the university, but that by student religious organization was not.

21. Other Cases to Note Widmar v. Vincet (1981) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1981) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) Kincaid v. Gibson (1997) Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)