Opinion ID: 177072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: School Sponsored Speech

Text: With respect to the school's refusal to deliver Daniel's message to the student body in his absenceeither over the public address system, during an assembly or in written formin each instance the district court found that the message could be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school and was thus subject to the standard announced in Hazelwood. The court found in the alternative that the school's refusal to distribute Daniel's statement was also permissible under the more demanding Tinker standard for the same reasons articulated abovenamely, concerns about the disruption to the school that such speech could cause, including violence or other disruptions by angry and emotional students. Even applying the more demanding Tinker standard, Appellants have failed to show it was unreasonable for the Individual Defendants to have refused to publish Daniel's statement to his classmates in school. Here, given the circumstances surrounding the [DeFabio] dispute, [Daniel's proffered statement] posed a substantial risk that [East Hampton High School] administrators and teachers would be further diverted from their core educational responsibilities by the need to dissipate... anger or confusion over the veracity and sincerity of Daniel's statement, as well as ancillary questions concerning the extent to which the school endorsed the statement by assisting Daniel in its publication. Doninger, 527 F.3d at 51-52. For these reasons, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this aspect of Appellants' First Amendment claim.