本页的正文尚未翻译，因此以下内容以英文显示。上方的摘要、标签和安全信息已翻译。
Tinker v. Des Moines protects a student's personal expression — an armband, a t-shirt, a comment — unless it substantially disrupts school operations. Many students assume the same rule protects a school newspaper, yearbook, or other school-sponsored publication. It generally does not. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court drew a real distinction between a student's own speech and speech that the school is publishing under its own name.
The case: censored stories in a school paper
A principal removed two pages from a school newspaper before publication, over stories about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students, on the grounds that the subjects were inappropriate for younger students and that individuals discussed in the stories might be identifiable despite the use of pseudonyms. Student journalists sued, arguing the removal violated their First Amendment rights under the Tinker standard.
The Court's distinction: whose speech is it?
The Supreme Court held that Tinker's substantial-disruption standard governs a student's personal expression, but a different, more permissive standard applies to school-sponsored activities — a curricular newspaper, a yearbook, a school play — that the public could reasonably believe carry the school's endorsement. For those, a school may exercise editorial control as long as its actions are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns, a considerably easier standard for a school to meet than showing an actual or likely substantial disruption.
The practical dividing line the Court drew is whether the publication is produced as part of the curriculum, under a faculty advisor, with school resources and the school's name attached, versus an independent student publication distributed on campus but not sponsored by the school, which is treated more like the personal expression Tinker protects.
State 'New Voices' laws raise the floor
Since Hazelwood, roughly a third of states have passed their own student-press-freedom laws, often called New Voices laws, that restore something closer to the Tinker standard for school-sponsored student media within that state, regardless of what Hazelwood alone would allow. Where a New Voices law exists, it generally gives student journalists more protection than the federal floor, and can also add specific protections for a faculty advisor against retaliation for supporting student journalists.
Whether your state has adopted one of these laws is the single most important fact for a school-newspaper dispute, because it can change the entire standard that applies.
What to check before assuming the worst
If a story, photo, or yearbook entry is pulled or edited by an administrator, ask three things: is this publication school-sponsored or independent, does your state have a New Voices-type law, and what specific educational concern is the administrator citing. 'I don't like it' is not the same as a reasonable educational concern, even under Hazelwood's more permissive standard.
A school-sponsored publication is not a lawless zone for administrators either — Hazelwood requires a real, articulable educational reason, not an unlimited veto.
请记住
- Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) lets schools exercise editorial control over school-sponsored publications for legitimate educational reasons — a lower bar for the school than Tinker.
- The key question is whether the public would see the publication as carrying the school's endorsement.
- Roughly a third of states have New Voices laws restoring stronger protections for student journalists — check your state specifically.
- Even under Hazelwood, a school needs an actual, articulable educational reason — not just disapproval — to censor.
资料来源
本文提供的是一般教育信息，不是针对个人的法律意见。KidsKnowRights 不是律师事务所，阅读本文不会建立律师与当事人的关系。法律因州、年龄和具体情况而异，也会随时间变化。如需针对真实情况的建议，请咨询持照律师或法律援助机构。