from removing the students' "inappropriate publication" due to the fact that it was published in a public forum and was not a part of the cirriculum. The three Hazelwood students argued that the school violated the First admendment ant the court agreed even with Hazelwood's arguementthat students and faculty alike could recognise indirect mentioning of specific students in the publication. It has been later ruled that school officials are allowed to remove inappropriate student publications, but in this case the students won. I believe that the court interpreted the First Admendment too strictly and factors such as the fact that the newspaper was supported by the school, and that the school does have resposibility over the students to protect as well as educate them as long as they are on school property.
from removing the students' "inappropriate publication" due to the fact that it was published in a public forum and was not a part of the cirriculum. The three Hazelwood students argued that the school violated the First admendment ant the court agreed even with Hazelwood's arguementthat students and faculty alike could recognise indirect mentioning of specific students in the publication. It has been later ruled that school officials are allowed to remove inappropriate student publications, but in this case the students won. I believe that the court interpreted the First Admendment too strictly and factors such as the fact that the newspaper was supported by the school, and that the school does have resposibility over the students to protect as well as educate them as long as they are on school property.