should prior review be allowed iin schools that have done nothing wrong

I will be on the pro side of this resolution. So, I would like to start by properly defining Prior review. "Prior review means reading only. More specifically for student media, the term refers to the practice of school officials - or anyone in a position of authority outside the editorial staff - demanding that they be allowed to read (or preview) copy prior to publication and/or distribution." ( http://www.studentpress.org... ) Id like to start off by refuting my opponents opening statement, my opponent states "My school has prior review and we have never published an article that is obscene or vulgar, therefore our school has taken away our first amendment". While this is infringing upon the freedom of speech, it is for the better. Lets look to the beginning of the prior review in schools, the court case of "Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier". This is the case that started prior review. The student editor staff wanted to publish articles on teen pregnancy, and the effects of divorce on children. I would completely understand why this would be a problem, knowing kids, they would publish names of students, therefore humiliating students, even if the editor staff did not provide names, pregnant teens, or children whose parents divorces are known will be publicly or even privately humiliated. While my opponent says "we have never published an article that is obscene or vulgar", and that is why prior review is used! If you have prior review,vulgar, obscene, suggestive, and inappropriate articles will not be released. The court states several instances which prior review would be used or needed, "material that is "ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences." Potentially sensitive topics, such as "the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting," "the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting," "speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with the 'shared values of a civilized social order'" may also be censored. In addition, the Court said school officials can censor material that would "associate the school with anything other than neutrality on matters of political controversy." Lets face it voters, teenagers do not have the best sense of right or wrong, and are not the most educated. Not because of their age, but because their minds still need to develop, and they have many years of learning ahead of them. Prior review is needed for the reason of humiliation, protection, and safety. While my opponent might say that the school has to much power, or can censor anything they want, the school has to provide a reason to the censorship decision. They may not censor simply because they disagree, or because they believe its wrong. So the school cannot censor an article simply because they feel like it. there are no viable reasons to which prior review isn't neccesary other then our first amendment right. I believe that our first amendment right is being violated, but at the same time, many people are being protected. Protection inherently outweighs this right. http://www.scholastic.com... Ultimately,I have shown that there are no real downsides to prior review, and that it only helps schools. My opponents burden is to show several harms that prior review has on the school system. I look forward to my opponents argument. Thank you.