COMM: Theories of Freedom of Speech and Press

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
A small group of students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were sent home; the question was whether a fear that the situation “might get out of control” justified the school’s action.

Ruling:
The Court held that the students’ wearing of armbands was “closely akin to ‘pure speech’” and that there was no evidence of interference with schoolwork or disorder, emphasizing that “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough.”(dissent)

Barnes v. Liberty High School (2018) — Federal District Court

Issue:
A student wore a pro-Trump T-shirt and was told to remove it based on concerns it would create a hostile environment and disrupt the school.

Ruling:
The court issued a restraining order allowing the student to wear the shirt, finding “not enough… to show… legitimate concern justifying censorship of this core political speech” and insufficient evidence of substantial disruption. (dissent)

Bethel v. Fraser (1986) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
A student delivered a speech containing an “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor” in violation of a rule prohibiting obscene or profane language.

Ruling:
The Court reversed the lower courts and held that schools may discipline students for lewd, indecent, or offensive speech at school events, emphasizing the role of schools in teaching “habits and manners of civility.” (affirmed)

Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie (7th Circuit, 2008) — Federal Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Issue:
A student sought to wear a “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt in response to a school event promoting tolerance of gay students, and the school restricted the message as derogatory.

Ruling:
The court ordered the school to allow the T-shirt, finding that the message was “only tepidly negative” and that the school had stretched its policy “too far” in restricting the speech. (dissent)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
Whether certain words that inflict injury or provoke a reaction can be restricted under the First Amendment.

Ruling:
Prohibits words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” (affirmed)

Cohen v. California (1971) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
What qualifies as “fighting words” that can be restricted.

Ruling:
Fighting words are limited to “personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” (dissent)

Harper v. Poway (9th Circuit, 2006) — Federal Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Harper v. Poway (9th Circuit, 2006)

Issue:
A student protested the school’s “Day of Silence” with messages targeting sexual orientation, raising concerns about harm to other students.

Ruling:
Schools may prohibit speech that “intrudes upon… the rights of other students,” particularly those who may be injured by verbal assaults based on core identifying characteristics. (affirmed)

Morse v. Frederick — U.S. Supreme Court

Morse v. Frederick

Issue:
At a school-sanctioned event, a student displayed a banner (“Bong Hits for Jesus”) that a principal reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use.

Ruling:
The Court upheld the school’s action, holding that schools may restrict student speech that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use, while noting the decision was limited and did not broadly restrict political speech. (affirmed)

Stroub v. McCrumb (2024) — Federal District Court

Stroub v. McCrumb (2024)

Issue:
During a school “Kindness Challenge,” a third-grader wore a hat with an AR-15 and the slogan “COME AND TAKE IT,” which the principal viewed as violating a rule against offensive or violent themes.

Ruling:
The principal concluded the hat violated the prohibition on violence themes; the parents argued the First Amendment “doesn’t end at the schoolhouse gates” and that the hat was “pure speech.” (affirmed)

N.J. v. Sonnabend (7th Circuit, 2002) — Federal Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Issue:
A student wore a T-shirt depicting a firearm and was told it violated a school rule prohibiting such imagery.

Ruling:
School officials stated the T-shirt violated the rule prohibiting shirts depicting firearms. (affirmed)

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
School officials removed articles about pregnancy and divorce from a school-sponsored newspaper produced as part of a journalism class.

Ruling:
The Court reversed the appellate court and held that schools may exercise editorial control over school-sponsored speech when it is part of the curriculum and consistent with educational purposes. (affirmed)

B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools — Sixth Circuit (Court of Appeals)

Issue:
Students wore “Let’s Go Brandon” clothing, and the school interpreted the phrase as vulgar and prohibited it.

Ruling:
The court agreed with the school, holding that it could reasonably prohibit the speech as vulgar, emphasizing that schools may restrict vulgar or profane student expression even when political. (affirmed)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) — U.S. Supreme Court

Issue:
A student posted vulgar messages on Snapchat off-campus criticizing the school and was suspended from the cheerleading team.

Ruling:
The Court held that the school’s discipline violated the First Amendment, noting the speech occurred off campus and did not cause substantial disruption, even though schools retain some authority in such contexts. (dissent)

Chen v. Albany Unified School District — Ninth Circuit (Court of Appeals)

Issue:
Students created an off-campus Instagram account with racist posts targeting Black classmates, leading to school discipline.

Ruling:
The court upheld the discipline, finding the speech involved “vicious invective… targeted at specific individuals” and caused disruption, allowing school regulation. (affirmed)

L.M. v. Town of Middleborough — First Circuit (Court of Appeals)

Issue:
A student was barred from wearing a “There Are Only Two Genders” T-shirt, which the school viewed as demeaning to other students.

Ruling:
The court upheld the school’s action, reasoning that the message could be reasonably interpreted as demeaning and likely to disrupt the educational environment. (affirmed)

Dissent:
Justice Alito argued that the school suppressed speech because it expressed a disfavored viewpoint and relied on vague concerns about offense rather than the Tinker standard.

B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School District — Ninth Circuit (Court of Appeals)

Issue:
A first-grade student gave a drawing with the phrase “Black Lives Mater any life,” and the school restricted it as inappropriate.

Ruling:
The court held that elementary students’ speech is protected under Tinker, and vacated summary judgment because there were factual questions about whether the restriction was justified. (dissent)