Another alternative source of information for those interested in the case would be http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/search?q=avery+doninger

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969: In protest against the Vietnam War, high school students wore black armbands to school. The principal suspended the students who refused to remove the armbands, after fearing they were going to cause disturbances. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision overturned the suspension, saying that public schools can’t restrict student speech unless they can prove a disturbance resulting from the speech is likely to “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986: A high school student was suspended for giving a sexually suggestive speech at a school election assembly. The Supreme Court upheld the suspension by a 7­2 vote, saying a school is entitled to teach its students “the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior” and can ban lewd, vulgar or profane student expression on school grounds or at school sponsored events without having to show likelihood of disruption.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988: A high school principal refused to allow the school’s official student newspaper to publish controversial articles about pregnancy and divorce. The Supreme Court sided with the principal, 5-3, saying the Tinker case does not apply to school-sponsored student speech. The court’s decision found educators may “in any reasonable manner” control content of school-sponsored publications, productions and other expressive activities.

Morse vs. Frederick, 2007: A high school student was suspended for displaying a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” while the students had been allowed during school time and under school supervision to watch the Olympic Torch go by in the streets. The court ruled 5 4 that his suspension was constitutional, saying that just as in the Fraser case, schools have the right to teach socially acceptable behavior, including deterring drug use. Schools can punish or prohibit student speech advocating illegal drug use even if it is not likely to cause disruption.

— Source: The Center for First Amendment Rights

This is a great read.

Another more realistic take on the case can be found here as well: http://brownraysman.typepad.com/technology_law_update/2007/09/back-to-school-.html

I also think it makes the administrators look intolerant and probably will cause some loss of respect of authority in the school.

1. I don’t like the way that high school students’ rights are being slowly eroded. Tinker was 40 years ago and since then there have been several major rulings that curtail free expression within schools. Teenagers are still members of our society.

2. I disagree with the fundamental assumption in this case that speech on a blog falls into the same category as speech within the grounds of the school. Calling someone a name isn’t illegal and I suspect that all students are not held to a standard of spotless conduct to participate in activities.

Additionally, I doubt she would have been penalized for her writing if she hadn’t already antagonized the school administration by going above their heads and seeking popular support from taxpayers so the students could use the school auditorium for a music festival. (When the school superintendent got a slew of emails supporting the students’ bid to use the auditorium she was upset and the school cancelled the festival. This was the conflict that sparked the infamous “douchbag” comment.)

3. How do people learn to participate in a democratic society when they are trained in our educational institutions as they are currently structured?

It’s actually because I take the FA seriously that I’m glad to see this ruling came out as it did. If we put a suburban teenager’s position as class officer on the same level as a government arresting a columnist for an unfavorable editorial, that doesn’t elevate the teenager’s standings — it diminishes the seriousness of the arrest.