Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
· Case: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
· Year: 1988
· Result: 5-3, favor Hazelwood
· Related constitutional issue/amendment: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
· Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil Liberties
· Significance/Precedent: The Court said that schools should be able to set high examples for student speech and that schools have the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was didnt have any significance. The ruling of this case showed that even though we have certain rights, these rights can be limited depending on where you are (ex. school). This case was significant because it showed that all Americans have rights but these rights may be limited in certain issues or places.
· Quote from majority opinion: “The First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. Schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order. Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so
long as their actions were reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The actions of principal Reynolds met this test."
· Illustration/image: See Below
· 6-word summary: School Newpaper Censor, Freedom Speech Restricted
· Year: 1988
· Result: 5-3, favor Hazelwood
· Related constitutional issue/amendment: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
· Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil Liberties
· Significance/Precedent: The Court said that schools should be able to set high examples for student speech and that schools have the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was didnt have any significance. The ruling of this case showed that even though we have certain rights, these rights can be limited depending on where you are (ex. school). This case was significant because it showed that all Americans have rights but these rights may be limited in certain issues or places.
· Quote from majority opinion: “The First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. Schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order. Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so
long as their actions were reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The actions of principal Reynolds met this test."
· Illustration/image: See Below
· 6-word summary: School Newpaper Censor, Freedom Speech Restricted