04.03 The Decision 
04.03 The Decision
HAZELWOOD V. KUHLMEIER
I, Desiree Cramier, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, I agreed with the majority opinion. I chose this because of the fact this it was a school sponsored newspaper. I think this gives the school the right to take out those pages and also because of the nature of those articles. These articles would have without a doubt been an inconvenience and distraction for the students of the school. Since these articles violated the rights of several others, it was of everyone’s best interest that they were removed.
I favored a loose interpretation in this case. Although students have rights, there is a need for certain rights to be restricted to avoid any disruptions and chaos within the student body. This is one case where I believe the school was using these restrictions properly to protect the rights and best interest of others. Even though the school newspaper is a form of public expression, the newspaper was school sponsored therefore it had every right to alter the paper.
The factors that most influenced my decision were the irresponsibility with concealing the identities of the interviewees in the school article, as well as the criticism of student parents. The people in the interviews were promised to have their identities concealed and were under that impression when conduction the interview. The principle was protecting these people and when he realized that the published paper revealed their names, he pulled it immediately.
T.M. V. STATE OF FLORIDA
I, Desiree Cramier, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.
In the T.M. v. State of Florida case, I agreed with the majority opinion. I chose his because I thought the curfew ordinance was unconstitutional. I do believe a city may have an interest in passing the laws diminishing behavior for the public’s health and safety. However,
HAZELWOOD V. KUHLMEIER
I, Desiree Cramier, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, I agreed with the majority opinion. I chose this because of the fact this it was a school sponsored newspaper. I think this gives the school the right to take out those pages and also because of the nature of those articles. These articles would have without a doubt been an inconvenience and distraction for the students of the school. Since these articles violated the rights of several others, it was of everyone’s best interest that they were removed.
I favored a loose interpretation in this case. Although students have rights, there is a need for certain rights to be restricted to avoid any disruptions and chaos within the student body. This is one case where I believe the school was using these restrictions properly to protect the rights and best interest of others. Even though the school newspaper is a form of public expression, the newspaper was school sponsored therefore it had every right to alter the paper.
The factors that most influenced my decision were the irresponsibility with concealing the identities of the interviewees in the school article, as well as the criticism of student parents. The people in the interviews were promised to have their identities concealed and were under that impression when conduction the interview. The principle was protecting these people and when he realized that the published paper revealed their names, he pulled it immediately.
T.M. V. STATE OF FLORIDA
I, Desiree Cramier, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.
In the T.M. v. State of Florida case, I agreed with the majority opinion. I chose his because I thought the curfew ordinance was unconstitutional. I do believe a city may have an interest in passing the laws diminishing behavior for the public’s health and safety. However,