To Freely Express or Not To Freely Express?.
Throughout American society, people have always complained about their right to free speech. Although it's a very important issue, nonetheless, the Supreme Court sees this issue as a right that can be fluctuated or decided on as they see fit. This judicial behavior is uncanny and unfair, not to mention bogus, bias, and above all, undemocratic. The nine justices that sit in the Supreme Court and make decisions on what's constitutional and what's not, have the nerve to tell people that they do or don't have the right to free speech. Now, of course they are not completely denying constitutional rights, but they are proving to be inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical, because they allow some people based on age, environment, and other factors, to express freely, whereas, others have to "watch it" depending on their environment. This chauvinism is clearly evident in the Supreme Court case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which is a case where one has to ask themselves what is constitutional and what is not? .
Supreme Court Justice White stated in speaking for the majority, " . . . educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." (landmarkcases). Basically, under specific circumstances school administrators have the authority to censor its student publications due to the outcomes of the Hazelwood case. The Hazelwood case or "Hazelwood Standard," as it has come to be known, broadened school officials" authority to censor beyond the "Tinker Standard" by allowing the schools to censor any publication that has not been established as a public forum for student expression (Shutt). This is a veiled indirect notion that gives school authorities the influence to exercise constitutional power, which is and should be limited to the Supreme Court justices.
