Law Commons^™

Silencing Students: How Courts Have Failed To Protect Professional Students’ First Amendment Speech Rights, Shanelle Doher

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Over the past two decades, social media has dramatically changed the way people communicate. With the increased popularity of virtual communication, online speech has, in many ways, blurred the boundaries for where and when speech begins and ends. The distinction between on campus and off campus student speech has become particularly murky given the normalization of virtual learning environments as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court clarified that students retain their First Amendment rights on campus but that schools may sanction speech that materially and substantially …

Tinkering With The Schoolhouse Gate: The Future Of Student Speech After Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L., Victoria R. Bonds

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

When the Supreme Court last created a rule about students’ First Amendment rights, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. Students’ use of social media and technology has radically changed since then, and it is time the First Amendment case law reflects that. With the transition to online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic and overall increased reliance on technology, students need clear answers about when school officials can punish them for their social media posts.

The Supreme Court had a chance to clarify First Amendment student speech law this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., but …

Restoring Student Press Freedoms: Why Every State Needs A 'New Voices' Law, Clare R. Norins, Taran Harmon-Walker, Navroz Tharani

Scholarly Works

Scholastic journalists across America have long provided vital reporting, commentary, and fresh perspective on issues of public concern to their readers. Never has this been more true than in the current age of dwindling print media, where scholastic journalists at both the high school and post-secondary levels are stepping in to populate what would otherwise be news deserts. Yet the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), allows school officials to censor both the content and style of school-sponsored media without offending the First Amendment. This essay traces the history of student speech rights …

“Dress Coded” A Distraction And Disruption: Sex-And-Race-Based Discrimination And Speech Restriction In Public School Dress Codes, Elizabeth "Bitsy" Skerry

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

The State Response To Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier, Tyler J. Buller

Maine Law Review

It’s hard to predict what an average member of the public thinks when he or she hears the words “student newspaper.” Opinions vary. This Article goes beyond that public perception and demonstrates that student journalists across the country are doing work that matters. Student reporters uncover corruption, help hold government officials accountable to taxpayers and the public, and bring to light important issues that would otherwise go unreported. They allow students to develop academically, professionally, and socially. And they give a voice to developing citizens who are often disenfranchised from voting, holding elected office, or otherwise participating in politics and …

Professional Standards And The First Amendment In Higher Education: When Institutional Academic Freedom Collides With Student Speech Rights, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines rising tensions between institutional academic freedom and the First Amendment speech rights of college students. Specifically, the friction addressed here occurs when universities enforce external professional standards on students within their curricula. Initially, Part I provides a primer on institutional academic freedom. Part II then contrasts the vastly deferential Hazelwood approach to professional-standards disputes embraced by the Eighth Circuit in Keefe with the somewhat more rigorous ones adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Oyama and Minnesota’s Supreme Court in Tatro.

A Benign Prior Restraint Rule For Public School Classroom Speech, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is a contribution to a symposium on schools and free speech. It advances the claim that the First Amendment doctrines that apply to the classroom should adopt a benign prior restraint rule. In the case of teacher classroom speech, the Garcetti rule should apply where the government’s action in interfering with the speech constitutes a prior restraint—the First Amendment should not reach such interference. In cases where a teacher first speaks and then is later punished for that speech, however, basic notions of due process and the dangers of arbitrary governmental decision making are far more pressing, and …

When School Is Not In Session: How Student Drug Testing Can Transform Parenting, Amanda R. Lamberson

Touro Law Review

This comment focuses on a growing trend in today's schools: requiring drug tests. A focus is given both to the judiciary's role in this matter and the Legislature's passage of New York Education Law section 912-a, 10 which regulates student drug testing and urine analysis.

Recognizing The Public Schools' Authority To Discipline Students' Off-Campus Cyberbullying Of Classmates, Douglas E. Abrams

Faculty Publications

The American Medical Association, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified bullying in the public elementary and secondary schools as a "public health problem". This article explains the schools' comprehensive authority, consistent with the First Amendment, to impose discipline on cyberbullies, by suspension or expulsion if necessary. Ever since Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court's First Amendment decisions have granted the schools authority to discipline student speech that causes, or reasonably threatens, (1) "substantial disruption of or material interference with school …

Tweaking Tinker: Redefining An Outdated Standard For The Internet Era, Shannon M. Raley

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note argues that the Tinker standard needs to be reevaluated to encompass Internet-related cases both by eliminating the “on-campus” requirement and by further defining what constitutes a “substantial disruption.” The “on-campus” requirement should be eliminated for the following reasons: 1) lower federal courts already disregard this condition for Internet-related cases; 2) it leads students to abuse their First Amendment rights; and 3) this requirement threatens the safety of teachers, students, and other school personnel. Additionally, Tinker's “substantial disruption” prong would be better understood as a factors test. This ensures that schools utilize the same criteria in determining whether a …

Freedom Of Expression In Secondary Schools, Ann Aldrich, Joanne V. Sommers

Cleveland State Law Review

Guzick v. Drebus, currently under consideration on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, raises important questions concerning the application of the First Amendment to secondary school students.