Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeier: Case Study

I, Jessica, write this opinion to majority on the case of Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier.
The majority opinion claimed that the principal did the right thing in removing the pages before printing. It argued that it did not violate student’s rights, but on the other hand it protected the parents in the divorce article and the identities in the pregnancy article. By protecting the rights of others, he was also protecting the rights of those individual students mentioned in the articles and the school’s image. The minority opinion claims that the articles removed still represented individual student views. Those who argued the dissenting opinion justified it by expressing concern over what permitting censorship will do in the long run. For instance, if censorship was permitted in this case, it would set a precedent for general student censorship with
v. State of Florida.
In this case, majority opinion argued that the law at Pinellas Park was unconstitutional because it was not narrow enough to include all reasonable exceptions; it only targeted activities most likely to result in crime. The dissenting or minority opinion argued that the law was interpreted too strictly and that the whole law should not have been deemed unconstitutional because minors should not be allowed in public places at late hours without an adult.
My opinion leads more to the majority of the case because sometimes minors do not mean to be in public places after curfew. There can be many situations in which the minor was at a friend’s house and time slipped away and he or she had to walk back home. This does not necessarily mean that the minor was engaging in possible criminal activities and it does not call for punishment from the police. Although the dissenting opinion justifies the law to be of the public interest, it focuses more on minors possibly engaging in criminal activity at late hours and restricts minors from their