Hazelmeier Case Summary

Jimmy Milne
Government Online
Ms. Gwynn
24 April 2017

4.03 The Decision

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier

Step 1
In this case, my opinion reflected the majority opinion that the censorship of the newspaper pages did not violate the student's rights under the first amendment. I tended to favor more of a loose interpretation, but I would form a moderate opinion on some of the questions. The first question to me I took a moderate position. Students and adults have the same rights, but because they are in school, they have these same rights but to a lesser extent. I had a looser interpretation when it was brought up that the school newspaper is not a forum for public discussion. If they are printing what they publish, it shouldn't be used as a forum for
It was simple to me. The school newspaper is about representing the whole school, not individual students themselves. Both sides could agree that the students were presenting their own views, but then this is where the sides start to split. The minority believed that since the students were expressing their own views, that the Tinker standard should apply. But, this was not applied because the students are not suppose to use the school newspaper as a public forum for discussion. The school newspaper is suppose to represent the whole school, and not just those writers. Therefore, the principal was doing nothing wrong by restricting the student’s rights when he censored and prevented the release of the articles in the
v. State of Florida

The majority opinion on this case supports that T.M. in his claim that the city ordinance is unconstitutional. I agree with this because it’s not fair, even though it was created to protect the people in the city. The ordinance isn’t specific enough to go after crime related activities in the community. I believe that minors should have the same rights as adults, which is why I disagree with the ordinance. Finally, I also believe that a city curfew interferes with parents trying to set rules for their own children to follow.

I tended to favor a looser interpretation in this case. The constitution is a document that keeps changing. Although it says ‘All men are created equal’ it doesn't actually mean only men. That has changed to men and women. But now it could mean all people, adults or children. I think that kids underage should have their rights and rules set by their parents, since they are the ones raising them. I also had a looser interpretation on that the law supported the public, even though there was a lack of data. While yes, this is flawed, this was also created with the interest of protecting the public. While having a loose interpretation for the most part, I did have a strict interpretation when it came down to the last question. I very much believe that this law interferes with the parents ability to raise their own kids. They should be able to do it without