Download
1 / 11
110 likes | 372 Views
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. Katelyn Strawhand David Chen Chelsea Hedrick. Summary & Outcome. Hazelwood East High School newspaper published viewpoints of three girls who were pregnant (1983) Second article published with vivid accounts of divorce
E N D
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier Katelyn Strawhand David Chen Chelsea Hedrick
Summary & Outcome • Hazelwood East High School newspaper published viewpoints of three girls who were pregnant (1983) • Second article published with vivid accounts of divorce • Principal deemed both articles “inappropriate” • School taken to court in defense of students’ First Amendment • Court ruled in favor of the school
Spectrum Staff • Filed lawsuit against their school and claimed that their First Amendment rights had been violated • Sixteen-year-old Sue had it all — good looks, good grades, a loving family and a cute boyfriend. She also had a seven pound baby boy. Each year, according to Claire Berman (Readers Digest, May 1983), close to 1.1 million teenagers — more than one out of every 10 teenage girls — become pregnant. In Missouri alone, 8,208 teens under the age of 18 became pregnant in 1980, according to Reproductive Health Services of St. Louis. That number was 7,363 in 1981.
Principal Reynolds • Principal of Hazelwood East High • Decided that the articles were not appropriate for school • Pregnant students' identities not adequately disguised • The article's sexual content was too mature • Divorce article didn't grant full rights to the parent who was mentioned • Not enough time to make necessary adjustments to the paper before it was released • (Include quotes here)
Proceeding Appeals • Presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals and continued to Supreme Court
Outcome (cont.) • On January 13, 1988 it voted 5-3 and reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals • Principal did in fact have the right to censor any material he found inappropriate • Found it was “not unreasonable” for Reynolds to conclude that “frank talk” by students about their sexual histories and use of birth control was “inappropriate in a school-sponsored publication distributed to 14-year-old freshmen.”
J. White • “Educators do not offend 1st Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored…” • “A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission…”
