25 years of censorship: How Hazelwood silences students' personal, political, religious expression

Abandoning the principles the Supreme Court announced in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier would have the [I suppose] unintended effect of making sure no school-financed or sanctioned publication was ever again published.

Er, "the 25th anniversary of the 1998 Supreme Court "Hazelwood" decision . . . ." Math error -- Not a good opening for an article about education.

I suspect the author would agree with public schools censoring student speech that promotes promiscuity, underage alcohol use, and ridicule of teachers or school administrators. She is highly critical of censorship when it crosses into areas that comport with her belief system or views. Yet there are some the school communities who support limiting speech on topics that the author would promote. There are problems with letting the majority draw the line on government sponsored speech anywhere, including in public schools.

Thanks, Maudine for pointing out the actual year of the decision. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how 1998 was 25 years ago...

I don't think this decision is as big a deal as the article tries to make. It's only reasonable that school publications and functions in which the school is represented have clear standards about what kinds of writing or behavior are permitted. Now, if students were being censored off-campus or officials were digging around in personal belongings for "inappropriate" materials to confiscate, that would be a completely different matter.

I couldn't force the Deseret News or any other publication outlet to publish my article "Why I Love Satan" (just an example), or something poorly written or laced with profanity now could I? Would that mean I am being censored?

The decision was actually in '88....

This is a nice reminder of the beginning if the 'PC' movement. This decision was originally (and still is) used to prevent sexual discussions, profanity, satanic references, and drug references, just to name a few. The limitations mentioned in the article are "unintended consequences" but valid restrictions none the less.

I think I am missing something - the SCOTUS decision was in 1998, and a 1994 article says schools started using it immediately. How exactly does a 1994 article know what happens after a 1998 decision?

We are just thirty miles from the mecca of student and faculty censorship.