Lesson 57 - Free Speech 18:

GOVERNMENT AS K-12 EDUCATOR

The government has broad authority to control what children say in K-12 (kindergarten through 12th grade) schools.

1. The government may restrict profanity, sexual innuendo, and, probably, common rudeness (such as personal insults) generally. The theory here is that part of the school's job is to teach kids to behave politely.

2. The government may also restrict other speech if there's *solid evidence of likely disruption* to school activities from the speech. Thus, the government can probably punish students for wearing T-shirts that express a position which other kids might fight over (for instance, speech that's bigoted or otherwise insulting to many) or even be seriously distracted by.

So say that a school gives all students free e-mail accounts. What restrictions can the government impose? Well, note that the government is acting here *both* as educator and as a proprietor, so it gets the benefit of both rules. Thus,

A. Taking away students' accounts for sending profane or sexually suggestive messages to other students is probably constitutional.

B. Taking away students' accounts for sending messages politely critical of the principal is probably unconstitutional, *unless* there's solid evidence that these are likely to cause disruption to school activities.

C. Telling students that they can only use their e-mail accounts for class-related activities is constitutional; the government acting as a proprietor can define the designated public forum as being limited to class-related matters.

authors:

Larry Lessig David Post Eugene Volokh

Back to Lesson Index

	1.	The government may restrict profanity, sexual innuendo, and, probably, common rudeness (such as personal insults) generally. The theory here is that part of the school's job is to teach kids to behave politely.
	2.	The government may also restrict other speech if there's solid evidence of likely disruption to school activities from the speech. Thus, the government can probably punish students for wearing T-shirts that express a position which other kids might fight over (for instance, speech that's bigoted or otherwise insulting to many) or even be seriously distracted by.

		A.	Taking away students' accounts for sending profane or sexually suggestive messages to other students is probably constitutional.
		B.	Taking away students' accounts for sending messages politely critical of the principal is probably unconstitutional, unless there's solid evidence that these are likely to cause disruption to school activities.
		C.	Telling students that they can only use their e-mail accounts for class-related activities is constitutional; the government acting as a proprietor can define the designated public forum as being limited to class-related matters.