Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist. No. 204

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
636 F.3d 874 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A public school violates a student's First Amendment rights by prohibiting passive, non-inflammatory speech that expresses a viewpoint on a controversial social issue, unless the school can present specific, concrete evidence demonstrating a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to the educational environment. The hostile reaction of other students to the speech, known as a 'heckler's veto,' is not a permissible ground for censorship.

Facts:

In a large public high school, some students participated in a 'Day of Silence' to bring attention to the harassment of homosexuals, wearing shirts with slogans like 'Be Who You Are'.
Plaintiffs Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll, who disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds, participated in a 'Day of Truth' on the following school day.
Zamecnik wore a T-shirt with 'Be Happy, Not Gay' on the back.
A school official, citing a rule against 'derogatory comments' regarding sexual orientation, forced Zamecnik to ink out the phrase 'Not Gay'.
The school subsequently banned the display of the slogan 'Be Happy, Not Gay' on campus.
Following Zamecnik's actions, she was harassed by other students, particularly in a Facebook group created to criticize her.

Procedural Posture:

Students Nuxoll and Zamecnik sued the Indian Prairie School District in federal district court, alleging an infringement of their First Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the district court.
On a prior appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the denial and ordered the district court to grant the preliminary injunction.
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarded them nominal damages, and entered a permanent injunction against the school's ban.
The school district (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment and the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the students (appellees) defending the lower court's decision.

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 high school's rule banning a student from wearing a T-shirt with the slogan 'Be Happy, Not Gay' violate the student's First Amendment free speech rights when the school cannot provide sufficient evidence to reasonably forecast that the slogan will cause a substantial disruption?

Opinions:

Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge

Yes. A public school's ban on the slogan 'Be Happy, Not Gay' violates students' First Amendment rights because the school failed to demonstrate a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption. The court reasoned that the slogan, while expressing a negative view on homosexuality, does not constitute 'fighting words' and is merely 'tepidly negative.' To justify its ban under the standard set in Tinker v. Des Moines, the school was required to present specific facts showing a likelihood of substantial disruption. The school's evidence—consisting of a few unconfirmed, past incidents of harassment of gay students, an inadmissible expert report, and evidence of hostility directed at the plaintiff—was insufficient. Crucially, the court rejected the school's reliance on the negative reactions of other students, holding that censorship based on a 'heckler's veto' is impermissible. A school that allows advocacy for one side of a controversial issue cannot suppress criticism from the other side absent a showing of substantial disruption.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar established by Tinker v. Des Moines for schools seeking to restrict student speech on controversial topics. The court's firm application of the 'heckler's veto' doctrine in a secondary school context clarifies that student speech cannot be suppressed merely because it offends others or provokes a hostile response. By rejecting the school's speculative evidence and conclusory expert testimony, the ruling provides a strong precedent against censorship based on generalized fears of hurt feelings or potential conflict, thereby protecting students' rights to express unpopular viewpoints.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist. No. 204 (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"