Is it constitutional for school officials to censor a school-sponsored publication, such as a newspaper or a yearbook?

How much school officials may censor school-sponsored student publications depends on whether the school has created an open public forum. For years, students were protected by a high standard of freedom of expression based on the Supreme Court's historic 1969 ruling in the Tinker case, in which the Court ruled that school officials couldn't prevent students from expressing their opinions on school grounds, as long as they didn't (a) cause a material or substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) intrude on the rights of others. For years, most courts supported the notion of granting students a high degree of protection under the First Amendment. That changed in 1988. In January 1988 the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-3 vote, ruled that the principal of Hazelwood East High School was justified in censoring a series of controversial articles in his school's newspaper, The Spectrum. In the ruling of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court established a new standard of ...  more

How much school officials may censor school-sponsored student publications depends on whether the school has created an open public forum. For years, students were protected by a high standard of freedom of expression based on the Supreme Court’s historic 1969 ruling in the Tinker case, in which the Court ruled that school officials couldn’t prevent students from expressing their opinions on school grounds, as long as they didn’t (a) cause a material or substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) intrude on the rights of others. For years, most courts supported the notion of granting students a high degree of protection under the First Amendment. That changed in 1988. In January 1988 the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-3 vote, ruled that the principal of Hazelwood East High School was justified in censoring a series of controversial articles in his school’s newspaper, The Spectrum.1 In the ruling of Hazelwood v.  more