## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 H EID I Z AME CNI K an d A LEXA ND ER N UXOLL, P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. I NDI AN P RAI RI E S CHO OL D IS TR ICT # 2 04 , e tal ., D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C1586

—WilliamT. Hart, Judge

. A RG UE D J AN UA RY 19, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 1, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P O SN ER, Cir cu i tJudg e . These co nsol i dated appeals ( func ti o na l l y o ne a ppea l, a nd we’ l l t r ea t th em as s uch ) are a s e q u e l t o an ap p eal w e d ecid ed alm ost th ree years ag o, N uxol l v. Indi an Prai r i eSc hool D i s t
. # 204 , 52 3 F
. 3d 668 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. The pl ai nt i ff s, t wo s tu den ts at Neuqua V alle y H igh Sc h oo l, a la rg e p u b l i c h igh sc h oo l in N ape r vi l l e, I l l i no i s, ha d s ue d th e sch o o l di st r i ct( an d sch ool offici als, w hom w e c a n ignore

— we’ l l c al l the2 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 defen dan ts , c o l l ec ti ve l y , “ the s ch o o l ”) f o r i nfr i ng i ng thei r ri ght of f re e speech by f orbi dd i ng them to m ake a s peci fi c ne gati ve sta tem ent about hom ose xuali ty. They m ove d fo r a pre l i m i naryi nj uncti on, w hi ch the dist ri ct j udg e den i ed. The y a ppea l ed, a nd we r ev er se d, di r ecti ng th e d ist ri ct j ud ge to enterf or thw i th a prel i m i naryi nj uncti o n tha t woul d pe r m i t pl ai nt i ff N uxo l l ( Zamec ni kha vi ng gr aduated) to w earduri ng s choolhour s a T- shi rtthat re ci tes “Be Hap py, N ot Gay. ” N uxol l ’ s right t o w ear i to ut s i de o fs c ho o l i s n o tque s t i o ne d. A pri va te g r o up c al l ed th e Gay, Le sb i an , a nd S tr ai g ht Ed ucati on N etworkpro m ote s a n annu alev ent c al l ed th e Day o fSilenc e th ati s i nt en ded to dr aw c r i ti ca l a tt en ti o n to h ar as smento fho m o se xua l s; the i dea b eh i nd the nam e i s that ho m ose xuals ar e s i l enced by hara ssm en t a n d ot h e r d isc rim in at ion . Stu d en ts p ar tic ip at e in th e Day o fS i l en ce by r emai ni ngs i l en t th r o ug ho utthe d a y e x c e p tw h e n c a l l e d u po n i n c l a s s , th o u g hs o me tea cher s, as parto fthei r own o bserva n c e ofthe Day of S i l e n c e , w i l l n o tc a l l o n s t u d e n t s tha td a y . S o me students a nd f acul ty w earT- shi rts on the Day ofS i l ence that displ ay sl oga ns such a s “B e W ho You Are. ” N one of the s l oga ns cr i ti ci zes h et er ose xuali ty oradvoca tes hom osexual i ty, tho ugh “B e W ho You Are” car ri es the s ugges ti on that per sons w ho a re hom ose xual shoul d not be asham ed ofthe f act ortr y t o change i t. The pla i nti ff s, wh o disa pp ro ve of h om ose xuali ty on re l i gi ous g ro und s, part i ci pated ( w e use the p as t tense because bo th have now g ra d u ated) with other l i kem i nd ed students i n a Day ofTruth hel d on the fi rs t s choolN os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 3 day afterthe Day ofS i l ence. Pl ai nti ffZam ecni k wore a s hi rttha tr e a d “ M y Day ofS i l ence, S tr ai ght All i ance” on the fro nt and “Be Hap py, N ot Gay” o n the back

. A scho ol offi ci ali nked out the phra se “N ot G ay ” an d has banned d i spl ay o f th e sl o g an as a vi o l at i o n o f a sc ho o l rule f orbi dd i ng “der oga tor y c om m ents, ” s poken o r w ri tte n, “that re fer to rac e, et h n icit y, re l i g i o n , gen d er , s e xual or i e nt at i on , ordi sabi l i ty” ( em phasi s a dd ed )

. H e di d not o bj ect to the s l oga n on the fro nt o fthe shi rt
. The pla i nti ff s a sse rta const i tuti onalr i ght t o m ake negat i ve sta tem ents about m em ber s of any grou p pro vi ded th e st at ement s ar e no t i nfl amm at o ry

— t h at is, are not “fi ghti ng words, ” which m ean s s peech l i kel y t o p ro vo k e a vi o l en t r es po ns e amoun tingt o a b r ea cho fthe p ea c e. C ha pli nsky v . New Ha m psh ire, 315 U
. S. 568, 57 2- 73 ( 1942 )

. They c oncede that they c oul d not i nscribe “ hom osex u a ls go to H ell ” on th eir T -shirts beca us e thos e are fi ghti ng word s, atl eas t i n a hi gh- schoo l se tting, and so cou ld b e p rohibited de sp ite the fact th at th ey are sp ee c h, d iss em in at in g a n op in ion
. R
. A. V. v. Ci ty of St
. Paul , 505 U
. S. 377, 386 (1992 ). Whe n l a s t th i s c a s e w a s h e r e , w e e x p r e s s e d ( a n d we re peat o ur e xpressi on o f ) sym pathy ( thought excessi ve by J ud ge Rovneri n her co ncurr i ng o pinio n, 52 3 F
. 3d at6 76

- 80 ) f o r a n e xpa ns i ve i nt er pr et at ion of th e “fi ghti ng words” doc tr in e when the spee ch i n questi on i s that o fstud ents. W e no te d thatthe contr ibuti on that ki ds ca n mak e to the mar k et pl ac e o fi dea s an d o pi ni o ns is m od est( J ud ge Rovnerdi sag re ed) and w e e m phasi zed ( o ve r emphas i ze d, i n h erv i ew) a scho o l ’ s co unt er va i l i ng4 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 i nter esti n prot ecting i ts students fro m o ffen si ve speech bythe i r c l as smates t ha t woul d i nt er f er e wi ththe l ear ni ng pro cess

— th ou gh w e ad d ed th at bec au se 18-yearol ds can now vot e, hi gh- schoo l stud ents sh ou l d not be “r ais ed i n an i ntel l ectualbubbl e, ” Am e r i ca n Am us e m e nt M achine A ss ’n v. Kendric k, 2 44 F.3d 57 2, 577 (7th Cir. 20 01 ), w h ich w ou ld be t h e t en d en c y of fo rb id d in g a ll di sc us si o n o fp ubl i c i ss ue s bys uchs tu den ts dur i ng sch ool hou rs. (H en ce th e youn ger the children , the m ore l at i tu de th e s ch o o l a utho r i ti es ha ve i n l i m i tinge xpr es si o n. M ul l e r e x r e l

. M ul l e r v. Je f f e rs on Light house Schoo l , 98 F.3 d 15 30 , 153 8-3 9 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ).) Thu s a scho olth at perm i ts advocacyo fthe ri ghts of hom ose xua l s tu dents ca nnot be al l owed to st i fl e cr i ti ci sm ofhom ose xuali ty. The sc hoolar gued ( and sti l l ar gu es) that banni ng “Be H appy, N ot Gay” was j ust a m att ero f prot ecting t he “r i ghts” o fthe students a gai nst whom der o g at o r y c o m m en ts a r e di r ec ted. Butpe o pl e i n o ur soc i etydo nothave a l ega l r igh t to preve nt cr i ti ci sm o f th eir be lie f s o r ev en th eir w ay of life. R. A. V. v. Ci ty of St
. Paul , sup ra , 505 U .S. a t 3 94 ; B o o s v. B a rry, 48 5 U.S

. 31 2, 321 ( 1988 )

. A l though t ol er ance o fhom osex u ali ty has gr ow n, gay m ar ria ge rem ain s h igh ly c on tr ov er sia l. Today’ s hi gh sc hoolstud ents m ay soo n fi nd them sel ves, as voters, asked to vote on w he th er to ap p rove gay m arri age , o r to vote for candi dates w ho a pp ro ve ofi t, o r ones wh o disa pp ro ve. Inas kin g for a p re lim in ar y inj u n c tio n N u x oll ac kn ow ledg ed th at“ Be H appy, N ot G ay ” was o ne o fthe “n egati ve c o m m en ts ” ab o utho m o se xua l i tytha t heN os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 5 thought hi m sel fenti tl ed to m ake

. But w e s ai d that un li ke “h om osex ua ls go to H ell, ” w hich he con c e d es are “fi ghti ng wo rd s” in the co ntext o fa schoo l ( and unli ke “Iwil l notacc ept wh at God has condem ned” and “hom osexual i ty i s s ham efu l”

— te r m s he l d, pe r ha ps que st i o nab ly

— unle ss euphem i sm i s t o be the o nl y perm itt ed m od e o fexpre ssi ng a contr ove rs i alo pini on

— to be fi g ht i ngwor ds i n H arperv. Po w ay U nifi ed School D is tr ict, 445 F. 3d 1166 , 11 71 ( 9th Ci r. 20 06) , vac ate d as m oot, 54 9 U
. S. 1262 ( 2007 ) ) , “Be Hap py, N ot Gay” i s no t a n i nstance of fi ghti ng words. To j usti fy pr ohibi ti ng the i r displ ay th e sc ho o l woul d hav e t o pr es en t “f ac ts whi chmight re aso nabl y l ead sc h oo l o ffi ci al s t o f or ecas t s ubstanti al disr u p ti on. ” Tinkerv. D es M oines IndependentCo m m unity Schoo l D is tr ict, 39 3 U.S

. 50 3, 5 14 ( 1969 ) ; se e Bouch e rv. Schoo l B oard of School D is tr ictof Gre enf ie ld, 134 F. 3d 821, 82 7- 28 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ); Wa lk er-Serra no ex rel. Wa lk er v. Leo na rd, sup ra , 325 F.3d 41 2, 41 6 ( 3 d C i r . 200 3); LaVi nev. Bla i ne Schoo l D is tr ict, 257 F
. 3d 981, 98 9 ( 9th Ci r. 20 01)

. S uch f acts m i ght incl ud e a d ec l i ne i n students’ te st sco re s, an upsurge i n tr uancy, or othe r sym ptom s o fa si ck schoo l

—b u t t h e s c h oo l ha d p re se n te d n o s u c h f ac ts in r es po ns e to the mot i o n f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n. I n thi s f actualvac uum , we described “Be Hap py, N ot Gay” as “o nl y tepi dly negat i ve, ” s ayi ng tha t “ dero gat or y” o r “ demea ni ng ” se emed t o o s tr o nga c ha r ac te r i za ti o n. 523 F. 3d at 676. A s o ne would expect i n a hi gh sc hoolo f m or e than 4, 000 stud ents, ther e had be en i nci dents o f h ar as sm e n t o f h om os ex u al s tu d en ts . B u t w e t h ou gh t it sp ecu lative that allow ing the p la in tiff to w ear a T-sh irt th a ts a i d “ B e Ha p p y , No tG a y ” “ wo u l d h a v e e ve n a6 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 sl i ght t endency to pro voke s uch i nci dents, o r f orthat m att erto poi son the e du cati onalat m ospher e. S pecula

ti on that i t m i ght i s, und erthe rul i ng pre cedents, and on the s canty re cor d com pil ed thus f ari n the l i ti gat i on, to o th i n a r ee d on whi cht o ha nga pr o hibi ti o n o fthe exer ci se ofa student’ s fre e s peech. ” Id. N ot that Tink er ’ s “ substa nti aldi sr up tio n” te st has prov e d a mo de l o fc l a r i t y i n i t s a pp l i c a t i o n. T he cas es h av e tend ed to r el y o n j ud i ci ali ntui ti on r atherthan on data, and the i ntui ti ons ar e s om etim es o ut o fdate. Fo r ex am p le, althou gh i t’s been ruled that “lew d , vu lgar, obs cene, o r pla i nl y o ff ensi ve speech” can be banned fro m a sc h oo l, Canady v. Bos s i e rPar i sh Sc ho ol Bd. , 24 0 F.3 d 43 7, 4 4 2 (5 th C ir. 20 01 ), th e a u th or ity for t h e ru li ng

— Bet he l Sc hool D i s t r i ctNo. 40 3 v
. Fra ser, 478 U
. S. 67 5, 680- 82 ( 1986 )

— i nv o l ve d s tu den t spe ec h tha t, fr o m the per spe ct i ve e nabl ed by2 5 y ea r s o fe r o si o n o fr efi ne m en t in th e u se of lan gu ag e, se em s d i s t i n c tly lac kin g in sh ock valu e (e. g., “Iknow a m a n w ho is firm

— he ’s firm in hi s pants, he’ s fi rm i n hi s shi rt, hi s chara cter is fi rm

—but m ost
. . . of al l, hi s bel i ef i n you, th e s tu d en ts o fBe the l, i s fi r m,” id

. a t6 8 7( c o n c u r r i n go p i n i o n ) )

. An exam ple o f s c h oo l c en so rs h ip t h at cour ts have author i zed on fi rm ergr ounds is forbi dd i ng di spl ay of th e Con f eder at e fl ag, a s i n D e f oeex re l

. D e

f oev. Sp i va , 62 5 F .3d 32 4, 33 3- 3 6 a n d n . 6 (6t h C ir. 20 10 ); Sc ot tv. Schoo l Boa rd of A lachua C ounty, 324 F. 3d 1246 , 12 48- 49 ( 11th Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( pe r c ur i a m) , a nd We s tv. D e r b y Unif i e d S ch ool D i s t r i ctNo. 26 0 , 206 F.3d 135 8, 1361 , 1365-66 (10th Cir. 2000 )

— case s i n w hi ch se ri ous r aci alte nsi on had l ed to outbur sts of vi ol ence eve n bef or e the displ ay ofth e fl ag,N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 7

w hi ch i s widel y r ega rded as ra c i st and i ncendiar y. Borof f v. V an We r tC i ty B oar d of

Educ at i on , 22 0 F
. 3d 465, 46 7, 4 6 9

- 7 1 ( 6 th Ci r . 20 00) , i nv o l v e d T

- s hi r t s tha tde pi c t e d a th r e e - f ac ed J e s u s , a c c o mpa n i e d b y th e wo r d s “ S e e No Tr uth. He a r No T r uth. Spea kNo T r uth” a nd a dv o c a t e d, albeit o b liq uel y, the use o fi l l ega l drugs, a f or m o fadvoca cyi n the s ch o o l s etti ngtha t ca n b e pr o hibi te d wi th o ut ev id en c e of d isr u p tio n . M orsev . Frede ri ck, 55 1 U.S

. 39 3, 40 6- 10 (2007). These ca ses , m or e ex trem e than our s, do notes tabl i sh a gen erali zed “hu rt feel ings” d efen s e t o a high sch ool’ s vi ol ati on o fthe Fi rs t Am endm ent r i ghts ofi ts stude n ts. “A part i cul ar f or m o fhar ass m ent o r i nti m i dati on ca n be r egul ate d .

. . o nl y i f

. . . the sp ee ch at i ssue gi ves ri se to a wel l

- f ounded fearo fdi sr up ti on o r i nter f er ence w i th the ri ghts of oth ers. ” Sypniewski v. Warre n H il ls Reg i onal Bd. of

Educ at i on , 30 7 F .3 d 243, 264-65 (3d Cir. 20 02 )

. The s ame court, i n Saxev. St at eCol l egeAr e a S ch ool D is tr ict, 240 F.3d 20 0, 20 9 (3 d C i r. 20 01 ), fou n d “litt le basi s f orthe Dist ri ct Cour t’ s s w eepi ng as ser ti on that

‘ hara ssm ent’

— at l eas t when i t consi sts o fspeec h tar get ed so l el y o n the b as i s o fi ts e xpr es si ve c o nt en t

— ’ has nev er be enc o ns i der ed to b e pr o te cted ac ti vi tyunde r the F i r stAm en dm en t. ’ S ucha c at eg o r i ca l rule i s wi th o ut p recedent i n the deci si ons ofthe Suprem e Cour t o r th is C ou rt, an d it be lie s t h e v er y re al t en sio n be tw ee n an tihara ssm ent l aw s a nd the Consti tuti on’ s g uarant ee of f r e e do m o fs pe e c h. ” S e v e r e h a r a s s men t, h o we v e r, b l e nd s i ns en sibl y i nt o b ul l y i ng, i nt i m i dat i o n, a nd pr o vo ca ti o n, whi chc ancau se s er i o us di sr upt i o n o fthe de co r um a nd p eac eabl e at m o sph er e o fa n i ns ti tu ti o n de di ca te d t o the8 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 educati on o fyo uth. S choolautho ri ti es ar e e nti tl ed to exer ci se disc re ti on i n deter m i ni ng wh en stud en t speech cro sse s the line bet w een hur t feel i ngs a nd subst anti al disr up ti on o fthe educati onalm i ssi on, bec ause they have the r elev ant know l edge o fand re sponsibi l i ty f orthe conse quences. A s J ud ge Rovnerexpl ai ned i n her c on curr i ng o pini on i n the previ ous a pp eal, “the st at em ent [ ’ Be H appy, N ot Gay’ ] i s cl ear l y i ntend ed t o dero gat e ho m ose xuals

. T een agers tod ay often us e t he w ord ‘gay’ as a gen eric term ofdi spara gem ent. They m i ght s ay, ‘ Tha t sw eat eri s s o ga y’ a s a w ay of in su ltin g t h e loo k o ft h e g a rm en t. In thi s way, N uxol l ’ s s tat em ent i s re all y a doubl e- pla y o n w or ds beca use ‘ gay ’ f or m er l y m eant ‘h ap py’ i n com m on u sa ge , a n d n ow ‘ga y,’ in ad d itio n to m ea n in g ‘h om os ex u al’ i s al so often use d a s a g en er ali ns ul t. Nuxol l ’ s st at ement ea si l y fi ts the s ch o ol’ s de fi ni ti o n o f‘ di spa r ag i ng ’ a nd w ou ld m eet th at stan d ard f or m ost li sten ers . . . . [ T ]here is n o d ou b t t h at th e s log an is d isp ar ag in g . . . . [B u t] itis not the k i nd o fspeec h that w oul d m ateri al l y a nd substa nti al l y i nter f er e with schoo l act i vi tie s. Isuspectthat si m i l aruses o fthe w or d ‘g ay ’ a bound i n the hal l s o f [ N euqua Val l ey H i gh S chool ] and vi rtual l y e ver y other hi g h s ch o o l i n the Uni ted S ta te s wi th o utc au singa ny s ub s t a nt i a l i nt e r r up t i o n t o the e du c a t i o na l pr o c e s s . ” 52 3 F. 3d at 679. J ud ge Rovnerwarned that t h e fact that sc h oo ls “ ar e e d u c at in g t h e y ou n g for cit ize n sh ip is re aso n f orscr up ulo us pro tect i on o fConst i tuti onalfre edo m s o fthe i ndi vi dual, i fwe ar e no t to s tr an g l e th e fre e m in d atit s s o u r c e . . . . T h e F irs t A m en d m en t . .
. i s co ns i st en t wi ththe s ch o o l ’ s m i ss i o n t o teach b y e n-N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 9

cour agi ng debat e o n controv er si alto pics wh i l e a l so a l l o wi ng the s c ho o l t o l i mi t the de b a t e whe n i tbec om es su bsta nt ial ly d isrup tive. N ux oll ’s sl ogan -ad orned t-shirt com es now here nearthatst andard. ” Id. at67 9- 80. The prel i m i naryinj uncti on is sued on r em and perm i tte d N uxol l to wear duri ng sc hoolhour s a T- shi rtthat r e c i t e s “ Be Ha pp y , No tGa y . ” Pre tr i a l di s c o v e r y e ns ue d. Eventual l y t h e d i str i ct j ud ge gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe pla i nti ff s, awarded each o f t h em $2 5 i n dam age s f orthe i nfr i ngem ent ofthei r const i tuti onal ri ghts, and l ate r enter ed a per m anent inj uncti on, w hi ch diff er s fro m the prel i m i naryo ne i n runni ng i n f avo r of any stu d en t a nd i n not bei ng l i m i ted to the displ ay of th e sl o g ano n a T- sh i r t; f o r “ T- sh i r t” the pe r m an en t i nj u n c tio n su b st itu te s “ c lot h in g or p er so n al ite m s.” The j ud ge had gra nted sum m ar y j u d gm en t a gai nst the s chooldi str ict on Ap ri l 29 , 20 10, aftercl ass es had en ded butb efo r e fi na l e xa m s. By the t i m e he e nt er ed th e perm anent inj uncti on, o n M ay 20, N uxol l was abo ut to gr aduate. ( Zam ecni k was l ong gone .) Allthatr em ai ned for gr adua tings en i o r s to do was t o pa r ti ci pat e i n a f ew cer em oni alev ents cul m i nating i n the gr aduati on cer em ony on M ay 23. The sc hoolar gues that i nj uncti ve r el i efwas moo t o n M ay 20 b ec au se Nuxol l ha d no o cc as i o n t o wea r hi s “Be Happy, NotGa y” T -s hi r t atthe ce r emon i alev en ts , a nd di d no t. Butr emembertha t th e i nj uncti on had bee n br oad en ed to per m i t the di spl ay of the s l oga n on o thercl othi ng as well, a n d s o he co uld by vi rtue o fthe i nj uncti on have di spl aye d i t o n hi s g ra du ati on g own had he wanted to.10 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 T h e s c h oo l p oin ts ou t t h a t t h e g ra d u at ion w as n ’t h eld on sc h oo l gro u n d s a n d th at th e inj u n c tio n d oe sn ’ t ap p ly to the di spl ay o f t he sl og an el sewhere; that ’ s be cause the s choolhas neveras ser ted a ri ght t o contr olspeec h offscho olpro perty
. But i t wou ld v er y m uch l i ke to co nt r o l it a t t he g r adua ti o n c er emon y , a nd s o t r ea ts the venu e o fthe cer em ony as tem pora ryscho olgr ounds, as by i m posi n g a dres s co de on the gr aduati ng stud ents an d e nf o r ci ngi ts s ch o o l r ul es a gainstdr unk en ne ss a nd othe r disr up ti ve behavi or

— and i t r ega rds the di spl ay ofthe sl oga n “Be H appy, N ot Gay” as di sr up ti ve. The cl ai m ofm o o tn es s e va po r at es co m pl et el y wheno ne no te s th at th e per m an en t i nj unc ti o n r uns i n f av o r o fa ny student atthe hi gh sc hoo l, notj ust Nu xol l ; i t i s no t unli kel y that o ne o r m or e o fi ts 4, 000- plus students m ay s o med a y wa nt t o di s pl a y the s l o g a n. I nj un c t i o ns o f ten ru n in fa vo r of u n n am ed m em b er s o f a gr ou p , an d th is i s p r o pe r a s l o ng a s the g r o up i s s pe c i fi e d. R ul e 6 5 ( d) ( 1 ) ( C) ofthe F e de r a l R ul e s o fCi v i l P r o c e du r e r e qu i r e s tha tan i nj u n c ti on “ describe in re aso nabl e deta i l

. . . the act or acts r es trai ned orr equi re d,” but the r ule does not re quir e that the i nj uncti on nam e the par ti es w ho m ay en for c e t h e inj u n c tio n . See , e.g., Wi s co ns i n Ac t i on Coali t i on v. Ci ty of

Ke nos ha , 76 7 F
. 2d 1248 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85)

. “W hen th e c ou rtbel i eve s the underl yi ng r i ght t o be hi ghl y s i gni fi ca nt, it m ay wri te i nj unc ti ve r el i efa s br o ad as the rig h t it se lf.” 1 D an B . D ob b s, La w of R em edies § 2. 4( 6) , p. 11 3 ( 2d ed. 1993 )

. A nd Rule 71 author i zes nonpartie s to see k en for c em ent o fan i nj uncti on that “ gr ants re l i eff or a n on p ar ty or m ay be en for c ed ag ain st a n on p ar ty .”N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 11 The schoo l ’ s m ai n ar gum en t i s that the di str i ct j ud ge en ter ed su m m ar y j udg m en t pr ematur el y . He di d i fthe sc ho o l pr es ented e no ug h e vi den ce t o war r an t ane vi den

ti ar y hea ri ng to deter m i ne wh etherthe schoo l had had a re aso nabl e bel i ef that i t f aced a thre at ofsubst anti al disr up tion . T o car ryi ts burden i t pr ese nted thr ee types ofev i dence: i nci dents o fhar ass m ent o fhom ose xual students; i nci dents o fhar ass m ent o fpl ai n tiff Zam ecni k; an d the r epo r t ofa n e xpe r t whi chc o nc l ude d tha t th e slo ga n “B e H ap p y, N ot G ay ” w as “p ar tic u lar ly in sid iou s.” The fi rs t type of evi dence w as negl i gibl e: a hand fu l o f i nc i den ts y ears be f o r e th e T- sh i r t was fi r stwor n, i n a schoo l w ith thousands ofstud ents. The ev i dence consi sts , m or eov er, o fj us t th e af fi davi t a nd deposi ti on ofa si ngl e s chooldi str i ct o ffi ci al, wh i ch m er el y r ep eat s st at em en ts by o t h e r , u n i d e n t i f i e d s c h o o l offic ials re peati ng st ate m ents by unidenti fi ed students. The depone ntde sc r ibe d b ut c oul d no t co nfi r m the de ta i l s o fthe i nci dents

— and adm i tted thatbec ause the a l l ega ti ons of hara ssm ent had notbee n confi rm ed, no students had b e e n di s c i pl i ne d. The seco nd ty pe ofev i dence w as bar re d by the doct ri ne, unm enti oned by the s chool, o fthe “heckl er ’ s v eto
. ” Br own v. Lou i s i ana , 383 U .S. 13 1, 13 3 n . 1 (19 66 ); Tinker v. D es M oines IndependentCo m m unity Sc hoo l D is tr ict, sup ra , 39 3 U .S

. at 50 8-0 9; Ter m i ni e l l o v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 337 U
. S. 1, 4-5 (19 49 ); H edges v. Waucond a C om m un it y U nit Schoo l D is t. No. 11 8 , 9 F. 3d 1295 , 12 99- 1300 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)

. S tat em ents that w h i l e no t fi ghti ng words ar e m et by vi ol ence or thre ats o r othe r unp ri vi l eged reta l i ato ryco nd uct by12 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 pe r s o ns o ff e nd e d b y the m c a nn o t l a wful l y b e s up press ed because of that conduct. Otherwise f ree s p eech coul d be s tifled by the speak er ’ s o pp onents ’ m ounti ng a r i o t, e ve n tho ug h, b ec au se the s peech had c o nt ai ne d no fi ghti ng words, no reaso nabl e per son w oul d have be en m ove d to a r i oto us r esponse . S o the f act that hom ose xual st u d en ts an d th eir sy m p at h ize rs h ar as se d Z am ec n ik because o fthei r disa pp ro valo fherm ess age is not a perm i ssibl e g ro und f orbanni ng i t. Tw o ofthe case s that e nd or se th e d octri ne o fthe heckler ’s v et o, Tink era nd H edg es , a r e s c ho o l c a s e s , but T i n k er i s a l s o the s o ur c e o f the s ub s t a nt i a l di s r up t i o n tes t o f perm i ssibl e s choolcens or shi p . S ee 393 U
. S. at50 9. A ci ty can pro tectan unpopularspeak erfro m the vi ol ence of an an gr y a u d ien c e b y d e p l o yin g p olic e, bu t t h at is h ar d ly an apt r esponse to stud ents enra ged by a T-s hi rt
. A scho ol h as legit im at e re sp on si b ilitie s, alb eit p at er n alis tic in chara cter, to w ar d the i m m atur e ca p tive audie nce that consi sts o fi ts students, i ncl ud i ng the r esponsibi l i ty of prot ecting the m fro m being se riousl y di str acte d fr om thei r studie s byo ff ensi ve speech duri ng sc hoolhour s. Butthe a ng ere ng en der ed byZa m ecn ik’ s wea r i nga Tshi rt that sai d “ Be H appy, N ot Gay” did not gi ve rise to s ubs ta nt i aldi sr upt i o n. I t was no t he r wea r i ngthe sh i r t, b uthe r fi l i ngthi s l aws ui t, that e ng en der ed th e cre ati on o fa Face boo k gr ou p enti tl ed “Be H appy! N ot H ei di” [ Zam ecnik’ s fi rs t nam e] i n w hi ch hund re ds of c om m en ts w er e p os te d , m an y h os tile to h e r . B u t o n ly on e w as a th re at (“s om eo n e tells m e w h er e s h e liv es , iw ill fuckup he r ho us e, c ar, a nd wha te ve r el se i canf i nd” ) , a ndN os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 13 i t pr ovo ked a sensibl e c om m ent fro m ano therstud ent: “y o u s o und [ when m ak i ngthr ea ts ] j us t as s tu pi d a s sh e doe s . ” Man y o fthe c o mm e nt s a ddr e s s e d s ub s t a nt i al i ssues i nvol vi ng F i rs t Am endm ent c l ai m s, scho olpol i ci es, tr ea tmento fho m o se xua l s tu den ts , a nd the r o l e o fthe m edi a i n the dispute; a n d apar t fro m the obs ess i ve use ofexpl eti ves

— a defi ni ng feature of m oder n A m er i can cu lture, by no m ean s li m ited to teen agers

— the di scussi on o fthe i s s ue s wa s s ub s t a nt i v e , a nd e v e n, t o a de gr ee, thoughtful. H er e a re ty pica l co m m ents: “The s oci al studi es t ea chers ar e g o i ngt o b e ha vi nga de par tment m eet i ng r i ght a fter Sp ringBrea k i n or der t o be abl e t o disc uss thi s whole l aw sui t i n an e du cati onalway, to bri n g up so m e r eal l y m eani ngful disc ussi on. M or e than an y th i ng, thi s ca se b oil s do wn to a n i ss ue o fc o ns ti tu
ti o na l r i g ht s. And f r an k l y , s ch o o l r ul es o ve r r i de th e const i tuti onalr i ghts ofm i nor s i n the pu bl i c sc hoolsy ste m . The s ch o o l ha s th e r i g htt o s ea r cha nd se izur e ata ny t i me , d e s p i t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w. S i mi l a r l y , ‘ f r e e s p e ec h’ d oesn ’t app ly in pu bli c sch ools, becau se sc h ool rules are m ore sp ecifi c ” ; “I ’m very glad th at so m an y pe op le are banding tog etherag ai nst di scr i m i nati on, j u st p l eas e g o about i t i n a c l ass y a nd m atur e way; j ust l i ke A n a sai d on the m ess age boar d, don’t sto op to her [ Zam ecni k’ s] l eve l ”; “Hei di i sn ’ t su i ngb ec au se s he ha te s g ay s, sh e’s s ui ng be ca us e sh e was h arasse d f o r b einga ct i ve i n wha t sh e bel i eve s i n. Ial so thi nk tha t i fyo u w er e put i n her si tuati o n, y o u’ d fi g ht to o th an d na i l to g et what ever fucki ng po i nti ti s you ar e t r y i ngt o g e ta c r o s s . Wi th e v e r y g o o d, th er e i s th e ba d. You ha ve to t ak e i t i n s tr i de, no t m ak e up s o me s t u p i d c o mmu n i t y ma k i n gfu n o fs o me o n e . H e i di14 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 i s a ctual l y a r eal l y ni ce per son w ho i s j us t m isguided by re ligion an d a c los ed m in d .” Zam ecni k’ s par ents ask ed the schoo l to al l ow a bodyguar d to acco m pa n y herto cl ass o n the 2007Day o f Si l ence. H erm othe r sai d she was w or ri ed b y the “threa ts tha tthe s e p a r t i c ul a r s t ud e nt s h a d ma de a g a i ns tHe i di express i ng hervi ew . ” The s chooldi d not a l l ow the bo dygu ard bu t d id h ave a fem ale staffm em ber esco rt Zam ecni k f ro m cl ass to cl ass on that day. She d ec ided not to w ear her “ B e H ap p y, N ot G ay” sh irt. Th ere w ere no s er i ous inci dents, tho ugh i t is pos sibl e that a water b o t t l e tha twa s thr o wn a nd s t r uc ko ne o fh e r fr i e nd s ha d been aim ed at her. That lea ve s f orco nsi derat i on the exper t’ s r epor t. St ephen T. R ussel l has a Ph. D. i n so ci ol ogyand i s a pro f ess oro ff am i l y a nd co nsum ersci ences at the Unive rs ity of A rizona. H is 3 8-pa ge rep ort, 29 p ages of w hich are devote d to h is i m press i ve curr i cul um vi tae , es tabl i shes th at he ’s qu ali fi ed to gi ve ex p e r t testim ony on m atters re l ati ng to the att i tudes and b eh avi oro fte enage rs , with speci alr efer ence to tee nage rs wh o bel ong to m i nor i ti es, i ncl ud i ng se xual m i nor iti es

— i ncl ud i ng the re f or e ho m ose xual hi g h- sc ho o l s tu den ts
. Ye t th e “a na l y si s an d o pi ni ons” sect i on o f h i s r epor t, m i nus i ts bibl i ogr aphica l re fer en ces, i s l ess than tw o and a hal fpages l ong and can satisfy non e of th e requ irem en ts for ad m issible exp ert tes ti m ony that ar e se t for th i n Rule 70 2 o fthe Feder al Rules o fEvi dence: “( 1) the tes ti m ony is b ase d up on suf fi ci ent f acts o r data, (2) the te sti m ony i s the pro du ct o f re l i abl e pr inci ple s a nd m etho ds, and ( 3) the w i tness hasN os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 15 appli ed the pri nci ple s a nd m etho ds re liab l y t o the f acts of t h e c as e.” A l l thatthe re portsa ys, i n sev en num ber ed parag ra phs, i s that: ( 1) hara ssm ent, parti cul ar l y verbal, o fhom ose xual students i s co m m on i n schoo l s; ( 2) scho ols should ther ef o r e h a v e a nt i

- ha r a s s men tp o l i c i e s ; ( 3 ) h a r a s s e d s t ud ents “ar e a t r i sk f or negat i ve educati onal and heal th o utcom es” ; ( 4) “ho m ophobi c sl urs and derog ato ryr em ar ks” cr eat e a r i sk of“d i sr up ti ve behavi ori ncl ud i ng stud ent v i cti m i zati on a nd vi ol ence”; ( 5) scho ol d ist ri cts can l ose st ate fundi ng“ when stude nt s m i ss s ch o o l b ecaus e o ffee l i ng unsaf e du e to anti

- gay bul l ying”; ( 6) the Day of Silen ce do es no t “pr o m o te ho m o se xua lc o nduc t” o r “ pr o m o te the i dea th at h om ose xual conduct shoul d be e nd or sed by s o c i e t y ” ; ( 7 ) “t he p hra s e ‘ b e h a pp y , n o tg a y ’ i s n o t‘ t e pi d’ in a p u b lic s c h oo l se tt in g” an d in d e e d “ is p ar tic u lar ly i nsi dio us bec ause i t r efer ences a l ong- sta nd i ng st er eotype that gaypeopl e a re unhapp y, ye t a p p ear s t o be a sim p le p lay on w or d s.” P oin ts 1 th ro u gh 6 ar e p lau sib le i nfe re nces f ro m t h e resea rch that Dr. Russel l has ei ther c on d u c te d or c ite s in h is re p or t, or s o a t le as t w e’ll ass um e, tho ugh he does notdi scuss any of th at re sea rch

—j ust l i sts ci tat i ons. Po i nt7, ho wev er, whi chi s th e p un ch l i ne , c o m es o ut ofnowh er e. There i s no thi ng i n the re portto i nd i cate that Russel l kno w s an yt h ing about N euqua Val l ey H i gh S ch o o l, f o r the r e i s no r efer en ce t o the s ch o o l i n the re port
. N o exam ple i s g i ven o f“par ticu l ar l y i nsi dio us” state m en ts a b o ut hom osex ua ls. N o exa m p le i s given of a “hom ophobi c sl ur” or“der oga tor y r em ar k” about them16 N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 th at ha s ever been utte re d i n an y sch ool, or elsew he re f orthatm att er . Though the re portcal l s “ be happy, not gay ” par ti cul ar l y i nsi dio us, i t doe s no t i nd i cate wh at eff ec ts i t woul d b e l i k el y t o ha ve o n ho m o se xua l s tu
de nt s . I tg i v e s n o i nd i c a t i o n o fwha tki nd o fda t a o r s t ud y orm odel Russel l uses o r othe r re sea rche rs u se to base a predi cti on o fhar m to hom osexual stud ents on p ar tic u lar “n eg at ive co m m en ts .” N o m et h od olo gy is de s c r ib e d. No s i mi l a r r e s e a r c h i s de s c r ib e d. I n the i di o m o f Rul e 70 2, th e ex per t’ s r epo r t co nt ai ns no i nd i cati on o fthe “f acts o r data” re l i ed on, no i nd i cati on that tes ti m ony base d on the repor t w oul d be “the product ofr eliab l e pr i nci ple s a nd m etho ds, ” a nd no i nd i cati on th ati n f o r m ul at i nghi s o pi ni o n the e xpe r t “a ppl i ed the p ri nci ple s a nd m etho ds re l i abl y t o the f acts o fthe c as e.” Dr. R u ssel l i s a n expert, but f ai l s t o i nd i cate , however sk et ch i l y , ho w he us ed hi s ex per ti se t o g en er at e h is c o ncl usi on. M er e co ncl usi ons, witho ut a “hi nt o fan in fer en tia l p ro c es s,” a r e u se les s t o t h e c ou rt
. M id-St ate Fe r t i l ize rCo. v. Exch angeNat i onal Bank, 87 7 F
. 2d 1333 , 13 39- 40 ( 7th Ci r. 198 9); se e a l so G enera l E lectric C o . v. Join er, 52 2 U .S. 13 6, 14 6 (1 99 7); Clark v. Takat a Corp. , 19 2 F
. 3d 750, 75 8-5 9 (7 th C i r . 199 9); Wittm er v. P eters , 87F. 3d 916, 92 0 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ); Sou t he r n G routs & M or t ars , Inc . v. 3M Co. , 575 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2009) (per cu riam ). Ru ssell’ s i s as thi n a n e xpe r t- wi tn es s r epo r t as we’ ve s ee n. One i ssue re m ai ns: the schoo l chal l enges the aw ar d of damag es t o the pl ai nt i ff s, de spi te the mode sty o fthe aw a r d . Th e aw ard w as j us tified. Both plaintiff s w ere i nj ured , though o nl y s l i ghtl y (but $2 5 does notexag g er at e th e ha r m ) , b y the s ch o o l ’ s vi o l at i o n o fthe i r c o n-N os. 10

- 2485 , 10

- 3635 17
st i tu ti o na l r i g ht s. Za m ecni k ’ s sh i r t was de f ac ed an d N uxol l ’ s des i r e to wea r the T- sh i r t o n mul ti pl e o cc as i o ns i n 200 7 was thwarted byfearo fpunishm ent. The d ist ri ct j ud ge w as ri ght t o gr ant s um m ar y j ud gm ent i n f avo r of the pla i nti ff s, and the re l ief or dered i s j us t i fi e d b y the r e c o r d. A FFI RMED .

3- 1- 11