In Des Moines, Iowa, two public high school students and one junior high school student wore black armbands to their school to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and voice their support for a truce. They were aware that the school officials had adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and refusal would lead to suspension. The students sued in United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, seeking an injunction restraining the school authorities from disciplining the students and nominal damages. The court dismissed the complaint, upholding the constitutionality of the school authorities' action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbances of school discipline.
The United States Supreme Court held that the wearing of the armbands was divorced form actual or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. Wearing the armbands in protest was closely akin to "pure speech," which is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Thus, the school regulation prohibiting students from wearing the armbands violated the student's rights of free speech under the First Amendment. Because there was no evidence that school officials had reason to anticipate that the armbands would interfere with the work of the school, it appeared that the school's reaction was to avoid controversy which might result from wearing the armbands.
The Opinion of the Court states:
"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
"In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not posses absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments entitled to freedom of expression of their views."
During a school-sponsored event at the Bethel School District, the respondent (Fraser) delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. During the entire speech, the minor referred to his fellow classmate and candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. The morning after the assembly, the student was notified that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of the disciplinary rule, that he would be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from a list of potential graduation speakers. Later , the student brought action against the school district in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court, holding that the sanction violated the student's right under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, awarded him damages and enjoined the school district from preventing him from speaking at graduation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision by the Court of Appeals. It was held that "the First Amendment did not prevent the school district from suspending the student in response to his speech, since the penalties imposed were unrelated to any political viewpoint, and since the First Amendment did not prevent the school officials from determining threat to permit such a vulgar and lewd speech would undermine the school's basic educational mission, and there was no merit to the claim that the suspension violated due process..."
The Opinion of the Court States:
"Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the 'fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system' disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the 'work of the schools.' The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board."
"We have also recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language."
"We hold that petitioner School District acted entirely within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions upon Fraser in response to his offensively lewd and indecent speech. Unlike the sanctions imposed on the students wearing armbands in Tinker, the penalties imposed in this case were unrelated to any political viewpoint. The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as respondent's would undermine the school's basic educational mission."
The editor of a school newspaper sued the district over the removal of two stories by the high school principal. The principal did not believe the articles were appropriate for publication because the identity of the students in an article on teen pregnancy could be ascertained and the article on divorce was not well balanced. The principal made the decision to eliminate two pages from the newspaper, which removed the articles from publication. The Supreme Court found that the principal's actions were not unreasonable. The Court found that public schools did not possess all of the attributes of streets and other traditional public forums. The school had an interest in protecting the identity of the students in a pregnancy article as well as maintaining the integrity of student speech that allowed in the school newspaper.
The Opinion of the Court states:
"Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, the readers or listeners are not exposed material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school"
"A school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics..."
"A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'"
"We conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish the student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
"The principal's decision to delete two pages of Spectrum, rather than to delete only the offending articles or to require that they be modified, was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them"
On January 24, 2002 the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska on its way to the winter in games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS) staff and students were permitted to participate in the Torch Relay as an approved social event or class trip. As the torchbearers and camera crews passed by, Joseph Frederick and his friends unfurled a 14-foot banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS". The banner was easily readable to students across the street. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and took Frederick to her office and suspended him for 10 days because Morse believed it the message on the sign "encouraged illegal drug use, in violation of established school policy".
The Supreme Court held that "The First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to dangers of illegal drug use." The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was reversed.
The Opinion of the Court states:
"At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs. First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: '[take] bong hits..'. The phrase could also be viewed as celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion."
"The question thus becomes whether a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. We hold that she may."
"Drawing on the principles applied in our student speech cases, we have held in the Fourth Amendment context that 'while children assuredly do not shed their constitutional rights...at the schoolhouse gates...the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school"
Layshock vs. Hermitage School District
650 F.3d 205 (2011)
Justin Layshock used his grandmother's computer to access a social networking internet web site where he created a fake internet "profile" of his high school principal. The profile included a photograph of the principal that the student had copied from the district's website. The district suspended the student, placed him in an alternative education program, and banned him from certain activities.
The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the student on his First Amendment claim. The appellate court determined that the district's response to the student's conduct transcended the protection of free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment because (1) the district could not establish a sufficient nexus between his speech and a substantial disruption of the school environment, (2) the First Amendment could not tolerate the district stretching its authority into his grandmother's home and reaching him while he was sitting at her computer after school in order to punish him for the expressive conduct that he engaged in there, and (3) his use of the district's web site did not constitute entering the school and the district was not empowered to punish his out of school expressive conduct under the circumstances.
The Opinion of the Court states:
"At the outset, it is important to note that the district court found that the District could not 'establish a sufficient nexus between Justin's speech and a substantial disruption of the school environment'... Therefore, the School District is not arguing that it could properly punish Justin under the Tinker exception for student speech that causes a material and substantial disruption of the school environment."
"It would be an unseemly and dangerous precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a child's home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school sponsored activities. Allowing the District to punish Justin for conduct he engaged in while at his grandmother's housing using his grandmother's computer would create just such a precedent..."
"...punishment of Justin was not appropriate under Fraser because 'there is no evidence that Justin engaged in any lewd or profane speech while in school.'"
"We need not now define the precise parameters of when the arm of authority can reach beyond the schoolhouse gate because, as we noted earlier, the district court found that Justin's conduct did not disrupt the school, and the District does not appeal that finding. Thus we need only hold that Justin's use of the District's web site does not constitute entering the school, and that the District is not empowered to punish his out of school expressive conduct under the circumstances here."
Student Kara Kowalski used her home computer to create a webpage that was largely dedicated to ridiculing another student. The page was created on MySpace and was called "S.A.S.H." which Kowalski said stands for "Students Against Slut's Herpes." Approximately two dozen Musselman High School students replied to the invitation to join the page. The webpage featured pictures of fellow student Shay N. The photo of her was edited to have red dots over her face and a sign over her pelvic region reading: "Warning: Enter at your own risk." Administrators suspended Kowalski from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day social suspension because she had created a "hate website" in violation of school policy. Kowalski claimed she became socially isolated from her peers and received poor treatment from teachers and administrators, as well as becoming depressed due to her punishment.
The court of appeals held that "where such speech has a sufficient nexus with the school, the Constitution is not written to hinder school administrators' good faith efforts to address the problem" and it was foreseeable that the website would reach campus an cause a disturbance there.
The opinion of the court states:
"...Public schools have a 'compelling interest' in regulating speech that interferes with or disrupts the work and discipline of the school, including the discipline for student harassment and bullying."
"We are confident that Kowalski's speech caused the interference and disruption described in Tinker as being immune from First Amendment protection. The "S.A.S.H." webpage functioned as a platform for Kowalski and her friends to direct verbal attacks towards classmate Shay N." "...we are satisfied that the nexus of Kowalski's speech to Musselman High School's pedagogical interests was sufficiently strong to justify the action taken by school officials in carrying out their role as the trustees of the student body's well-being."
"To be sure, a court could determine that speech originating outside of the schoolhouse gate but directed at persons in school and received by and acted on by them was in fact in-school speech."