RO Ex Rel. Ochshorn v. ITHACA CITY SCHOOL DIST.
2011 WL 1878638, 645 F.3d 533 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit student speech that is lewd or offensive and may censor school-sponsored publications for legitimate pedagogical reasons, even if the speech would not cause a substantial disruption.
Facts:
- Students at Ithaca High School (“IHS”), serving as editors for the school-sponsored newspaper The Tattler, sought to publish a cartoon depicting stick figures in various sexual positions to accompany an article about sex education.
- The newspaper's Faculty Advisor, Stephanie Vinch, deemed the cartoon inappropriate and prohibited its publication in the January 2005 issue of The Tattler.
- The school administration then issued official guidelines requiring the faculty advisor to review and approve all content before publication.
- The student editors again attempted to publish the same cartoon in the February 2005 issue, and Vinch once more refused permission.
- After the Faculty Advisor resigned, the students created and funded an independent newspaper, The March Issue, which was not sponsored by the school.
- This independent newspaper contained the same stick-figure cartoon that had been censored from The Tattler.
- A student editor, R.O., requested permission from school administrators to distribute The March Issue on campus.
- The Superintendent denied the request to distribute the independent newspaper on school grounds because it contained the cartoon, which she deemed obscene and disruptive to the educational environment.
Procedural Posture:
- Students at Ithaca High School (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Ithaca City School District and several school administrators (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs claimed the defendants' actions violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the school's censorship of both the school-sponsored and independent newspapers was constitutional.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) then appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school's prohibition of a sexually explicit cartoon in both a school-sponsored newspaper and an independent student newspaper distributed on campus violate the students' First Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Cabranes, J.
No, the public school's prohibitions do not violate the students' First Amendment rights. The school acted lawfully under two separate Supreme Court precedents. First, regarding the school-sponsored newspaper, The Tattler, the school's censorship was permissible under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier because it was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, such as protecting immature students and reinforcing the school's health curriculum on the seriousness of sexual relations. Second, the cartoon itself was unquestionably lewd, and under Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, schools have wide discretion to prohibit vulgar, lewd, or plainly offensive speech on campus. This Fraser standard applies not only to the school-sponsored paper but also to the independent student newspaper, The March Issue, justifying the school's decision to ban its distribution on campus.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the broad authority of public school officials to regulate student speech, particularly content of a sexual nature. The court's application of the Fraser standard, which addresses lewd and indecent speech, to an independent, non-school-sponsored publication solidifies that this category of speech receives minimal protection on school grounds, irrespective of its source. By upholding censorship for pedagogical reasons under Hazelwood and for content-based reasons under Fraser, the ruling narrows the scope of protected student expression, making it clear that sexually explicit material can be regulated without the need to show it would cause a substantial disruption under the Tinker standard.
