Sorry - The link was sour because the page is buried in their database. Try this instead. Click here, then, in the Search box on the upper-right, enter “Hazelwood School” and hit Search. The second link should be it.
Thanks for the cite, sdimbert.
I did a quick Westlaw search (getting it for free as a law student is great!), and didn’t see any case reversing Hazelwood School. It’s been distinguished a few times by lower courts, but seems to be the last word to date from the Supreme Court on the issue.
Then what does the last line I cited mean? It says, “795 F.2d 1368, reversed.” Does that mean that this decision reversed that one?
if you accept the idea that the purpose of the educational system is to get people psychologically conditionaed to being subservient to authority it makes sense. if kids learn not to write anything, they learn not to THINK anything. they become adults who keep thier thoughts in line and can be trusted to remain FREE SLAVES.
a method used on elephants is to put chains on them as babies which they can’t possibly break. then as adults they can be held by light ropes which they could easily break but have been CONDITIONED to not even try.
“we don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control. no dark sarcasm in the classroom. teacher leave those kids alone.” Pink Floyd
Dal Timgar
Nice job, Dal! You’ve hit the nail on the head. What are we conditioning children to be? If it’s not free, responsible adults, able to make decisions from a moral perspective and with respect for the rights of others, then we’re doing something wrong, no matter what our intent actually was. And, by the way, if we don’t think the kids can get there, isn’t it a good thing our parents didn’t agree with us?
Is it just me or does the grammar in Pink Floyd’s lyrics speak for itself? 
I was a high school journalist, a college journalist and a professional journalist.
And I’m seeing an apples and oranges argument here about what a school newspaper is. While I’m not a lawyer, here’s my ex-journalist take on the whole thing.
A school newspaper belongs to the school. The staff may be made up of students, but they are simply the “staff.” It’s the publisher (the school administration, acting on behalf of the school board) that has the ABSOLUTE right to decide what goes into the newspaper.
It’s very simple. A school newspaper is an official extension of the school. If someone were libeled, the school administration would be held responsible for it.If it mistakenly said the school dance would be held Saturday instead of Friday and 400 people showed up and rioted, you can bet the principal and advisor would be called to task.
The students involved certainly have every freedom to go off-campus and put out their own newspaper, saying whatever they want. The school likewise, has every right to ban distribution of said newspaper on school grounds, just as you can cheerfully tell someone distributing literature on your property to “go peddle your papers somewhere else.”
All other issues are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that said students are minors (try printing something in your employee newsletter that the boss doesn’t like, and see how far your first amendment freedom gets you.) It doesn’t matter that students are compelled to be in school – even if writing for the paper is part of a class, that doesn’t give them any special right. It doesn’t matter that it’s a newspaper as opposed to a magazine, a Web site or a handbill. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a public or private school.
And if you think the absense of supervision automatically makes a student a responsible, well-rounded member of society, it’s time to re-read Lord of the Flies.
The only point worth considering is, who publishes the newspaper. That’s who gets the final say about what goes in.
sdimbert, of course, always comes through with the cite. Hazlewood was what I was trying to remember the name of before I posted.
As the former editor of my high school newspaper, there is a lot of controversy that goes on in a lot of schools over issues like this. I personally went up against both the newpaper “advisor” and principal over several issues we attempted to report, and was politely asked to back off. I didn’t, and usually won.
Despite Hazlewood, high school principals are, not surprisingly, a bit wary of involving the ACLU in what they consider their personal business.
And, at least here in Colorado, school newspapers had several allies in the state legislature. I’m not sure of the fact, but I believe one of them (Pat Pascoe), sponsored, and perhaps passed, a law giving school newspapers a good deal more latitude in running themselves.
This is really the way to go. It completely bypasses any Supreme Court decisions. So, school newspaper editors, if you’re having trouble with censorship, take your fight to the legislature. You’d be surprised how many allies you have there and in the mainstream, adult, media.
I guess it’s time to drag the old sig out again… 
dal_timgar, you’re an idiot.
No… really - You’re not an idiot. But, the POV you’re expressing here is asinine. Can I interpret your post to mean that you subscribe to the following theory?
**
That is an obvious untruth. So much so, that argument is unwarranted. Such statements can be dismissed as alarmist and extremist rhetoric.
Polycarp, you do a much better job of making a reasonable argument. You are right that the educative process should enable and enpower students to learn to make the right choices by asking them to make those right choices.
But, it would be irresponsible for an educator to allow a student to make the wrong choice if it hurts him/her or others. Imagine a Firearm Safety Instructor who lets the kids shoot each other so that they learn guns are dangerous.
Libelous or slanderous articles are not the purpose of school newspapers. If a Principal errs on the side of caution, he or she is to be commended for that caution.
Right on, Duck Hook! 
I think that kunilou is the one who has, “Hit the nail on the head.” The legality of this issue is simple and was clearly laid out by the Supreme Court in the Hazelwood Decision. (BTW, great point regarding Lord of the Flies!)
Necros, having friends in high places is commendable and enviable, but, where I live, the State Legislature does not have the power to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yes. The district court held that there was no First Amendment violation. The 8th Circuit court reversed, finding that there was. The Supreme Court then reversed the 8th Circuit, agreeing with the district court that there was no violation.
Believe it or not, sdimbert, you do. The Constitution gives certain rights to the people by forbidding the government to interfere in certain ways. It does not prevent the states from giving their citizens more rights. By placing more limitations on the public schools (which are owned and operated by the state government), the state is guaranteeing more rights to its underage citizens.
IIRC, at least one of the Westlaw citations I saw indicated that a local court had not followed Hazelwood School because it had been superseded by local statute.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ENugent *
**
Source? Or could you explain how to decipher the runes?
Thank you. I saw Dal’s post as working in irony, and very much on target as such. And the distinction you make is very clear in my mind (though apparently not so clear in my posts) – that students are to be trained to be effective and responsible participants in a representative government of free people. The distinction between the custodial acts of the school authorities, their self-protective acts (as in “censoring” portions of a school newspaper that they do not wish to take responsibility for allowing to be said), and the general authoritarianism that seems to evolve gradually out of the aforementioned two types of acts needs to be highlighted. Certainly they should undertake proper care of their charges, and no one can fault them for protecting themselves against legal action – but it is apparently oh so easy to cross the line into “I am the authority and you are the subject; it is your duty to follow my orders” and the sense that this needs to be instilled for proper “discipline.” IMHO, proper discipline in schools comes from requiring self-discipline from the students, making them bear responsibility for their actions where no permanent harm will result, and intervening when the last clause is inappropriate.
ENugent said:
This is absolutely correct. States are always allowed to grant more rights than the (federal) Consitution allows. So, if your state legislature decides to, say, lower the amount of evidence that police can take in seizure, they can most definitely do that. The same applies here. The state gave additional protection to newspapers, extending the First Amendment. They can’t take it away, but they can darn sure take less that the Feds say.
OK, so lets assume that a school has the right to censor any material from their paper that they wish–after all, it is their paper. But what if a school decides not to?
Is it then constitutional for the government to say what can and cannot be published in a school paper? Should the opinions expressed in a school paper automatically the establishment of the school itself?
And if so, then should high school newspapers or any other means of individual opinion-expressing be banned from schools?
that’s the 2nd time i’ve been called an idiot on a website.
last time was by an Economist with a PhD for my Economic Wargames.
i went to Catholic schools so my opinion may be somewhat biased. watched a kid cry in class my senior year because he got a B in math. he had straight A’s in everything until then. i almost started laughing, then i thought of all the useless idiotic homework assignment he had done just to get A’s. it was rather sad. i couldn’t be valedictorian, i got straight D’s in religion my freshman year. agnostics have an attitude problem.
i still stand by my psychological conditioning though. don’t you notice how many people follow orders even when they are stupid? i think it is a culture-wide problem, but the schools help create it.
Dal Timgar, have attitude will travel.