The Tinker Case at 50.

[Lone Clone]

We often disagree, but usually I can follow your line of thinking. Not this time. We both agree schools can exercise some restraint over student expression. The question is where is the line. I'm for the Tinker line that says schools can restrict what is otherwise constitutional to restrict or when there is a reasonable belief that a substantial disruption of school activities is imminent. You are for a lesser standard in Hazelwood that says a school can restrict even if the restriction is otherwise unconstitutional so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

That's the entire argument. I'm for more restrictions on government in this case, you are for less. BTW, the case was decided 5-3, not 6-3. As I suspected, you don't know this case very well, go read up on what you are supporting.

One reason we are disagreeing in this thread is that we're talking about different things. As I've tried to make clear, I don't think Tinker applied in the Hazelwood case -- although of course I know it was cited and arguments made about it by both sides. The fact is that in terms of press freedom, the management of the newspaper doesn't even need to have a reason, let alone a reason that will stand the test established by Tinker. If management decided to kill the teen pregnancy story because it wanted the space used instead for extra coverage of the football team, that might have been an idiotic decision, but it was within the rights of the management.

Another reason is that you refuse to respond to the specific points I have made, including the one about responsibility for libel.

I'm looking at the dispute as a journalist. I was struck at the time by the fact that so many people, including the adviser to the paper, didn't understand the most basic elements of the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom.

1. The adviser indicated she thought it was incorrect to believe that the guarantee of press freedom is limited to the owner of the press. But it is. No one has a constitutional right to have his/her material published in a newspaper against the wishes of the newspaper's management/ownership. Government can have a say in what is published, but only in very rare instances and never simply because of what newspaper employees want to see in the paper.

2. The adviser (and others) decried the ruling because they said student journalists should have the same rights as journalists in the real world. But that isn't what the critics wanted. They wanted the student journalists to have "rights" well in excess of those they will have when they go to work in the real world.

The analogy to a newspaper in the real world is imperfect, of course. One reason is that the publisher in this case is an arm of government. But that's irrelevant to the press freedom issue.

 

[joelbc1]

And yet, schools all over the country are moving toward mandatory uniforms to remove all vestiges of individuality from students because "someone might have nicer clothes than someone else and that would hurt people's feelings."

bloods and crips weren't a real threat to schools, teens and order back in the 1960's......I'd much rather have my kid wear an arm band in protest than wear a "uniform" as a form of protest.........I think we have learned a lot since then.

 

[BioHawk]

And yet, schools all over the country are moving toward mandatory uniforms to remove all vestiges of individuality from students because "someone might have nicer clothes than someone else and that would hurt people's feelings."

I have mixed feelings on uniforms but studies show that academic achievement increases when uniforms are required at schools.