The Five Freedoms Project

You Be The Judge

Test your knowledge of the Five Freedoms and see how you match up to the courts...and fellow citizens.

November 2009

Student Speech

A high school student campaigned for junior class president. He passed out condoms to accompany his slogan "Adam Henerey, The Safe Choice." School rules provided that students must obtain prior approval for their campaign materials. The student did not obtain prior approval before passing out the condoms. School officials disqualified him from the election even though he had received a majority of the votes. The student claimed a violation of his First Amendment rights. After a district court rejected his claim, he appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Can a public school require students to submit campaign materials for prior approval?

Vote Now!

  • 29%
    A. NO
    By censoring a student’s speech that is advocating for responsible behavior, the school violated the First Amendment and made a poor pedagogical decision.
  • 31%
    B. NO
    Officials may censor student speech if they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so. However, that standard is not met in this case.
  • 39%
    C. YES
    The school has a legitimate interest in divorcing its extracurricular programs from controversial and sensitive topics, such as teenage sex. The student's actions in distributing the condoms, therefore, ran counter to the District's educational mission.

  • Incorrect

    This was the logic of the dissenting judge in the case, Charles Wolfe, who believed the court should not have dismissed Henerey's First Amendment claim. "I disagree with the suggestion that safe sex among high school students is such a controversial topic that school officials may squelch its discussion in a school-sponsored school election contest."

  • Incorrect

    Although it is true, as per Hazelwood, that a school may not censor school-sponsored student speech unless it has a legitimate educational reason for doing so, the judges in this case felt that the school had a legitimate “interest in divorcing its extracurricular programs from controversial and sensitive topics, such as teenage sex."

  • Correct!

    In a 2-1 decision in the 1999 case of Henerey v. City of St. Charles, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school officials. "School districts have an interest in maintaining decorum and in preventing the creation of an environment in which learning may be impeded," wrote Judge Roger L. Wollman.

Remember — US Supreme Court decisions outline "the law of the land." Lower court decisions do not. Sometimes, this means different lower courts will issue contradicting opinions.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE COURT’S DECISION? WHY OR WHY NOT?

Visit the Soapbox at network.fivefreedoms.org to share your voice!

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE COURT'S DECISION?

0 responses to Student Speech

Add your own response.