Why Are Student First Amendment Rights Different in Schools?

[Pengwuino]

I remember that there was a SCOTUS decision decades ago saying that kids are not allowed their 1st amendment rights and various other rights to "keep order" or something to that effect in school. Does anyone know off-hand what case this was or maybe when it was decided? Bunch of kids on this other forum are crying out "they won't give us our constitutionally guaranteed rights!" and I am trying to explain to them exactly what freedom of speech would mean in a 700 kid elementary school.

This is really hard in google because "1st amendment" + "school" + "supreme court" is just a reallllllllly bad set of terms for what I am looking for (think prayer in school, uttering the word God, mentioning the bible in anyway at all... etc etc).

 

[honestrosewater]

Maybe http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=33& has what you're seeking? (Or you can check around that section, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/studentexpression/Index.aspx )
There are also some interesting cases http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm#fes . For instance, re Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

A school need not tolerate student speech, the Court declared, "that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission,' even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school."

The SCOTUS has also ruled in favor of students in other cases, so it isn't so straightforward.

In Tinker [v. Des Moines Independent Community School District], the Supreme Court said that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court ruled that Iowa public school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school.

The court noted that the students’ wearing of armbands to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a form of symbolic speech "akin to pure speech." The school officials tried to justify their actions, saying that the armbands would disrupt the school environment.

But, the Supreme Court said that "in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression." School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular. Rather, according to the court, school officials must reasonably forecast that student speech will cause a "substantial disruption" or "material interference" with school activities or "invade the rights of others" before they can censor student expression. The Tinker case is considered the high-water mark for student First Amendment rights.
- http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=33&

 

[Pengwuino]

Damn... US government teacher didnt smart us right ye haw

 

[honestrosewater]

Damn... US government teacher didnt smart us right ye haw

Well, you were partially correct. I think HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER is the case you're more interested in. I was just pointing out that, though the schools have been given more power in some respects, they haven't been given unlimited power.

Students in the public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker, supra, at 506. They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises - whether "in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours," 393 U.S., at 512 -513 - unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Id., at 509.

We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 -343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its "basic educational mission," Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was "sexually explicit" but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to "disassociate itself" from the speech in a manner [484 U.S. 260, 267] that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is "wholly inconsistent with the `fundamental values' of public school education." 478 U.S., at 685 -686. We thus recognized that "[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board," id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts. It is in this context that respondents' First Amendment claims must be considered.

...

The public schools do not possesses all of the attributes of streets, parks, and other traditional public forums that "time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 -268, n. 5 (1981). Hence, school facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have "by policy or by practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public," Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 47 (1983), or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. Id., at 46, n. 7 (citing Widmar v. Vincent). If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, "communicative or otherwise," then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community. 460 U.S., at 46 , n. 7. "The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). [484 U.S. 260, 268]
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=484&invol=260