Source: http://thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=56679
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:45:11+00:00

Document:
governing students’ religious and free speech rights in public schools, including Good News Club v.
officials to avoid needless litigation.
eviscerating the essential First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom.
that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995).
, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995).
speech simply because it may be perceived by some as “offensive” or “controversial.” Morse v.
Frederick’s speech is proscribable because it is plainly “offensive” as that term is used in Fraser.
240 F.3d 200, 215 (3d Cir. 2001).
U.S. 290, 313 (2000) (emphasis added).
prayer at the school flagpole was entirely permissible.
of expression.” Id. at 508.
school support for such religious meetings. . . . We disagree.
Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 249-50 (1990) (emphasis added).
, 496 U.S. 226, 249-50 (1990) (emphasis added).
because it involves religious prayer and worship violates the constitutional requirement of neutrality.
does not violate the Establishment Clause).
speech is private student speech.
fact, distribution of literature is inherently less disruptive than spoken expression. United States v.
must listen, comprehend, decide and act in order to respond to a solicitation.” Id.
protected speech under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. See Westfield High Sch.
distribute written materials peacefully”); Baughman v. Freienmuth, 478 F.2d 1345, 1348 (4th Cir.
prohibit the peaceful dissemination of information by students about the SYATP event.
SYATP IN THE SAME FASHION.
school's proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker.
Schools may explain that they do not endorse speech by permitting it.
Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist., 329 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hedges v.
advertising in the same way.
by protecting the right of SYATP participants to properly exercise their First Amendment rights.
legal representation to resolve the matter.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.