Source: http://thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=56675
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:01:27+00:00

Document:
While it would be inappropriate to provide you with legal advice at this time or under these circumstances, we are pleased to provide you with the following information which we hope you find useful.
The freedom to express a particular opinion, whether it be in speech, in writing, or in any other form and whether it be of a religious or non-religious nature, "strikes at the very core of first amendment values."1 The Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that the Constitution guarantees each student's freedom of speech and expression in public schools.2 The Court's decisions reflect the principle that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to free speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."3 Indeed, school officials "do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students are persons under [the] Constitution."4 This right to students' free expression applies even to speech which addresses controversial topics such as religion, war, homosexuality, and abortion.
Student speech may be suppressed only if the speech: (1) is vulgar, lewd, obscene, or plainly offensive; (2) is school- sponsored, (3) materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the schools; or (4) invades or collides with the rights of others.8 We will briefly clarify each of these categories. However, be aware that these are not perfect categories and many cases seem to fit under more than one of these exceptions.
Courts are constantly defining the boundaries of this category. However, one court has recently held that "[s]peech need not be sexual to be prohibited by school officials; speech that is merely lewd, indecent, or offensive is subject to limitation."14 The age of the students is also factored into a court's evaluation.15 Thus, a school might be able to prohibit certain age-inappropriate speech among elementary school students which it could not among older students.
One example of this type of exception is school policies prohibiting the wearing or displaying of certain allegedly offensive symbols. For instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that a student's first amendment rights were not violated when the principal prohibited him from wearing Marilyn Manson t-shirts to school.16 The shirts depicted a ghoulish and creepy picture of the singer and a picture and slogan which were disparaging of Christianity. Applying the reasoning in Fraser, the Court of Appeals determined that the school acted reasonably in determining that the shirts were inappropriate for the classroom and contrary to the school's basic educational mission.17 Be aware that other types of cases, like the confederate flag cases discussed below, might also be considered here as well.
Just a few months after West was decided the 11th Circuit rejected a student's lawsuit against a Florida principal who had suspended the student for displaying a Confederate flag at school in Denno v. School Board of Volusia County.29 There was no showing of past racial tension as there had arguably been in West case.30 Thus, the Court did not discuss whether there was a reasonable expectation of material and substantial disruption. Nevertheless, the 11th Circuit, basing its decision on Fraser, determined that the principal could have reasonably determined that the Confederate flag would be offensive to some students, and that because of this he could constitutionally prohibit students from displaying it.31 Note that the court did not determine the actual constitutionality of a ban against Confederate emblems absent any showing of expected disturbances. It merely determined that a reasonable principal could believe that this action was constitutional, and dismissed the damages action against the principal on that basis.
The current law confers broad freedom on students to express their opinions in a variety of controversial topics in public schools. Students' speech may be suppressed only in narrow circumstances.
The Constitution vests students with the important First Amendment right of freedom of speech, and schools who abridge this right do so at their own legal peril.
1. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 84 (1983).
2. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
5. Hedges v. Wauconda Comm. Unit School District, 9 F.3d 1298 (7th Cir. 1993).
protected as other forms of speech under the First Amendment).
7. See Tinker, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
8. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513.
10. 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
14. Broussard v. School Bd., 801 F. Supp. 1526, 1536 (E.D. Va. 1992).
15. See id. at 1537.
19. Id. at 271; Poling v. Murphy, 872 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1021 (1990).
21. Chandler, 978 F.2d at 529 (quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 484 U.S. at 271).
22. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 484 U.S. at 273.
28. West, 206 F.3d at 1365.
29. 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17435 (11th Cir., July 20, 2000).
30. Id. at 34 (Forrester dissenting).
32. Clark v. North Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 806 F. Supp. 116, 120 (N.D. Tex. 1992).
grounds, 55 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1995).
38. Id. at 173 (quoting Steirer v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 987 F.2d 989, 994 (3d Cir. 1993)).

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