think that hazelwood does apply hell is the restriction on the speech here not serving valid educational purpose so there's reports no right and so the entire essay was where except that it was being published now in the present and the principal found or use irresponsible sex or code of conduct or otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of those civilised social order if every time  a teacher says that a discussion of a particular topic is simply a general propre up and it's important here that this is a th of th grade class we're talking about al and any time a teacher decided that a particular discussion is this is just not appropriate or out of balance and all of it is done within the context of the curriculum y quite substantial a n you know it is sometimes the ground rules for essay contest and debates are another things that can appear to be arbitrary or they can appear to be strict but that you know that's just the way sometimes you have a road lenient teaches and then probably the best teacher i ever had was of one of the best was a st grade teacher who laid down some strict i had to lay down strict rules and and i it's inconceivable to me the irony other student had violated those tru time that this is that those distinctions are somewhat material because i don't know when young people gain their sexuality or notions of their own sexuality to be able to respond to issues like this but discussing sexuality and subject to sexuality and gender are procrit when the students can't even haven't even identified their own or experienced their own and so they leave that subject off the table at that point it's not an illegitimate subject i think it's a maturity question that they were worried about and i thought that the supreme court in hazelwood recognized that  regulating on on the basis of some level of maturity is an appropriate and appropriate thing for a school to do as best as it is true with the parents then let's the point of what we're doing right now if the teacher can did it teacher can do whatever they want and the president suggests they can do with it what they want because we we have a lot of principles and we're trying to delineate those principles here but the question is whether the school in indicating that the subject matter was not did not fit the maturity level of the class i think that's really the bottom line the question was should a court say they're wrong yes happy i mean it with all due respect i mean i'm sure you've read that essay there is it's all about not hurting other people and not judging people all these people and then another student says well these people don't deserve to be caught and all of a sudden you've got a class discussion on sexuality and the kids are whole  ten years old it's a and the teacher says hold it we're not going to get in this discussion why no why not teach a ten year old i mean what they don't understand it you know these ten year olds are these actually agree with this student's few points but the question is whether the principal is able to make a decision that he believes is best and most age appropriate for the entire class i don't see what i would say that teachers should do that with the supervision of the principal but again i really think we're just sort of circling around the basic idea of where do we where do we teach kids that there are people in a high astringent or a lot when do we teach kids about things they don't know so that they don't freak out and well and none of us in this argument are educators we are all lawyers and judges so don't you think it's best left to the educators to make this ok but it's a teacher's classroom teachers curricula well i mean at least the school i went to the same curriculum every year of the different eaters but you want i mean i hope you understand the idea is to address issues related to qualified immunity and the suit was on tape dismissal and the claim against the school district hazlewood clearly governs the analysis of the speech at issue in this case and up until this morning ah it was my understanding that the appellant's did not dispute that bit of parents have not provided any authority as to why this court should depart from hazelwood analysis under hazelwood a school has the authority to exercise control over the content and style students in school sponsored expressive activities that bear the imprimatur of the school as long as they're reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical interest and that that's what we're dealing with here i don't think it can be disputed that a compilation essays that were part of a written classroom assignment and published in a classroom book constitutes school sponsored speech i don't think that issue can be disputed also i think that the record is clear that the principals actions were clearly related to a legitimate pedagogical interest if you look you know stated in the amended complaint and i believe on page seventeen of the record the concern was she did not think that the topic was appropriate the question was raised you know at what time do we think it's appropriate for students to be there st discussions of sexuality occur in the classroom and i think the court has addressed that  taking the consistent view that then the education of the nation's youth is the primary responsibility of teachers parents in local and state school officials not that of federal judges and i think because of  that there has been great different deference given to administrators stated pedagogical interests and concerns i think the hazlewood who are gives us very clear guidance that schools need to be able to account for the to ensure that readers are not exposed to inappropriate material that might not be suitable for their age or their level of maturity and then courts and even i'm hailed that  sometimes a school's desire to simply avoid controversy or d potentially controversial topics within the school community or a need to disassociate itself with giving the impression that it sponsor in certain speech rights in any way you know to the extent that there's an argument about there being some type of violation based on viewpoint discrimination it's our position that the district court correctly concluded that hazelwood does not require viewpoint neutrality even if it did absent from the complainant any allegations to suggest that the principals decision was made on a view no allegations to support that the principal ally held their students tend to submit topics or write essays concerning sexuality or the l g b t community which had an opposite view a nd prong of the qualified immunity test under peers and be valid and i think my my co counsel has already said that the law is clearly settled but it's clearly settled in our favor in this case under hazelwo district court have known that temporarily excluding an essay addressing l b t q bt few issues from a th grade class publication would violate students st amendment rights and i think the answer is an obvious no to that question so at a bare minimum the the judge should be affirmed on the qualified immunity nd prong of the peers in the callahan test in favor of miss foster a move on to the arguments that were today and clearly that's not the case other rules permit district courts to dismiss actions upon their own motion we've cited in our brief right miller federal practice and procedure recognizing that courts can do that under both rule twelve and rule fifty six and other citations that we have are to cases that were sue us on tape dismissals were appropriate under twelve b six if the reason for the dismissal of claims against other parties would lead t same outcome as a motion made by a not by a nonmoving defendant would have the same outcome as as under the underlying basis of the decision on a moving defendant and the purpose of that obviously is judicial economy and efficiency if the law is already settled as the one defendant there's no reason to make the other defendants file a rule twelve's the motion or file their own motion to dismiss if it's a foregone conclusion and the courts apply that provided that there's not any prejudice to the plaintiff from that will and we submit that there is no prejudice to a ballot here at all had a full chance to argue the merits as part of the st prong of the pearson the ballot and qualified immunity as they certainly had noticed that we were moving to dismiss the claim on the merits of the st amendment claim while the motion to dismiss was pending a nd amended complaint was filed that with again with full knowledge that we were challenging the merits of the st amendment claim the nd amendment claim only addressed a state court claim negligent infliction of emotional distress so a full opportunity to brief both prongs of the callahan  test they've made no arguments in the brief only a cursory rule forty one dollars argument basically go principle here is the same as to the school district as it was to miss foster if there is no st amendment case on the merits against miss foster there's not one against the against the principal because our argument of course is that this principle foster doesn't get qualified immunity  because she is violating what you know has been so far you know called clearly established st amendment rights constitutional  rights which sound like a very high barrier but in all honesty the supreme court says the contours of the right have to be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official ery the principle but hatha know what she's doing is unlawful and basically that's the situation we have it's not the same argument it's the district carolina qualified immunity law basically bars and throws out everything in a similar way is the hazelwood case that they're talking about later we keep i keep hearing people anything in their favor at might say that they are arguing the case law in their favor and you can do the same but i don't think you should accuse them of manipulating anything well i'm looking at the twelve paragraph of the amended complaint and i have a couple quotes here from principal foster saying basically look this paper is going to make other parents upset it's not acceptable and it will create an undesirable situation at the school that's three quotes of the four the th one is she said you know it's not there it's not age appropriate to discuss transgenders lesbians hazelwood it's another catchall i mean that's the problem when you have a case like this that is you can make any decision you want to based on his and what is yes his i'm with you know this censorship pass to be reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns but then they go on and as usual i wish the opinion is more clear but it does say basically that you tell has not been defined an eighteen year old can be a richer they all are pretty much d an eleven year old a ten year old a fourteen year old you've got you know they list the reasons and only the very last one did it and we know that this or unsuitable for in the dry reschedule that's how if i were if i were on the other