Source: https://acalanesblueprint.com/2017/02/21/the-first-amendment-how-much-does-it-protect-students/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:38:27+00:00

Document:
The First Amendment: How Much Does it Protect Students?
However, Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD) Superintendent John Nickerson, Ed.D., who was the Acalanes principal at the time of the op-ed’s publication, believes that the tolerance policy poses no threat to student free speech.
“We feel very strongly that the whole purpose of limiting First Amendment rights in school is to prevent the disruption of the educational environment and the ability of students to be in a comfortable, safe place,” Nickerson said.
The article, and Nickerson’s response to it, raise an important question: to what extent does the First Amendment protect student freedoms of expression?
The answer is apparently not very clear to Acalanes students.
In a Blueprint-conducted survey of 184 Acalanes students, 46.2 percent believed that students are equally protected by the First Amendment both on and off public school campus, while 53.8 believed they aren’t.
According to Frank LoMonte, the Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center (SPLC), a Washington, D.C.-based legal assistance agency devoted to educating students on the First Amendment, public school students have practically all the same freedoms as normal citizens.
When applied to schools, the term “free speech” is often used to encompass any form of student expression, including student journalism, activism, art, apparel and general appearance, music, and, of course, the words from a student’s mouth.
Nickerson describes the AUHSD free speech policies as both normal and rather lenient.
“Our free speech policy is probably consistent with those of most school districts. Our schools are pretty progressive in terms of allowing students to express themselves,” Nickerson said.
One surveyed Acalanes student explained that, “[as] students, we forfeit some of these rights because we are in a setting where certain things are not appropriate.” As noted by the student, key differences exist between the First Amendment’s protection of normal people on the street and public school students on a campus.
“It’s broadly accepted that specialized domains can regulate speech more in order to serve their specialized objectives, so whether you’re talking about the army, a prison, or a school, these are communities with special objectives,” Blasi said.
Blasi believes that, because schools are special domains, the Acalanes tolerance policy is perfectly acceptable by constitutional standards.
A problem with this tolerance policy, however, might arise if administration punishes violators of the policy because, while some might believe that certain comments are light banter, others might construe them as “fighting words,” or language that is intended or anticipated to provoke a fight, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
“If you punish a high school student for arguing that school attempts to maximize integration are foolish or that gay marriage is immoral, then it might be a violation of the First Amendment to punish them for saying those things,” Blasi said.
LoMonte also believes that, while the policy itself is most likely not an infringement of First Amendment rights, the penalty attached to violating that policy is more problematic.
Student freedoms of expression are, however, protected at both the federal and state levels.
At the federal level, numerous court cases have set precedents for student speech in schools. One of the first landmark student free speech cases, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, reached the Supreme Court in 1968. A few high school students in Des Moines, Iowa were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. The school district claimed that the students had violated the high schools’ policies against armband-wearing.
However, such freedoms did not remain intact forever; the Supreme Court limited the freedoms of student speech by prohibiting sexually vulgar or profane language in the 1986 Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling.
To add insult to injury, the Supreme Court yet again ruled to limit student free speech in the 2007 Morse v. Frederick case. Joseph Frederick was suspended by principal Deborah Morse after displaying a large sign across from his school reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The court ruled that Frederick’s sign could reasonably be construed as advocacy of drug use, and therefore decided to uphold the suspension.
However, William Bennett Turner, the author of Free Speech: Supreme Court Opinions from the Beginning to the Roberts Court and a professor on freedoms of speech and press at the University of California, Berkeley, disagrees with the Morse v. Frederick decision.
“The outcome of Morse v. Frederick was unprincipled, unnecessary, and disappointing. It’s bad news for student speech, and it’s not a decision that has good rationale,” Turner said.
The outcome of Morse v. Frederick also introduces the pertinent debate between intent versus interpretation. While Frederick claimed his iconic poster meant no harm, the school’s principal, and later Supreme Court, interpreted it to be advocacy of drug use.
Despite these blows, the California Legislature has carved out special protection for student expression by passing the Leonard Law, encompassed in California Education Code 48950.
These additional protections, although not accounted for in the Bill of Rights or previous Supreme Court decisions, can be justly outlined by a state so long as they don’t break any federal laws, according to UC Berkeley’s Turner.
The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press, as noted by one surveyed Acalanes student that described the freedom of the press as “one of the most crucial aspects to a democracy.” 63.6 percent of surveyed Acalanes students incorrectly believed that California public school student publications are protected by the First Amendment to the same extent as professional publications, while 36.4 percent correctly believe they are not.
Once again, the Supreme Court ruled to limit student freedoms of expression, this time regarding student journalism, in the landmark Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling.
Often viewed as one of the most detrimental blows to student free speech, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier drew national attention when it reached the Supreme Court in 1987. Cathy Kuhlmeier, the editor of a school-funded student newspaper at a school in the Hazelwood School District of St. Louis County, Missouri, filed a First Amendment-infringement lawsuit against the school district after her school’s principal removed two stories, one about teenage pregnancy and the other about divorce, from the paper prior to its publication.
Upon reaching the Supreme Court, student journalism was dealt a massive blow when the court decreed that school-sponsored activities, including a school-funded student newspaper, are not protected from administrative censorship under the First Amendment.
California, however, yet again moved to protect student freedoms by passing state legislation that counters this ruling, this time in California State Education Code 48907. This code protects both school and independently-funded journalistic entities, and states that censorship of journalistic material is prohibited, except in the cases of obscenity, libel, slander, or language that incites immediate unlawful acts or violations of school regulations.
AUHSD, according to Nickerson, has not had an issue with censorship for a while, partially due to these expanded student journalism rights under the State Education Code.
“[AUHSD] administrations don’t always support or celebrate what is coming out in the newspapers, but the administrators in this district greatly values the role of student press and respects the freedoms of student press,” Nickerson said.
A whole different can of worms is opened, however, when discussing free speech rights of private school students.
“Under the federal Constitution, it’s simple: there are no constitutional rights at private colleges and high schools, and there is no requirement at all that a private school has to give you any degree of First Amendment protection,” LoMonte said.
According to Columbia’s Blasi, the speech rights of public and private school students differ because public schools are stems of the government, while private schools are not. Once again, however, the California State Legislature has come to the rescue.
The sole private school exceptions to the rule are religious schools.
With generations of lawsuits, Supreme Court rulings, and state and federal laws regarding student free speech, the rules binding student expression are often unclear and unknown.
LoMonte adds that many free speech rulings come down to pure luck.
Blasi echoed LoMonte’s beliefs that free speech laws, and law in general, are often very ambiguous and confusing.
So what have we learned? Students have a hel – I mean heck – of a lot of free speech rights on public school campuses.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.