My opinion dissented with the majority opinion. It was stated that the majority opinion was that the censorship did not violate the student’s right; however, I disagree with that. The principle usually approved the sample copies of the student newspaper, but a substitute took over the class and said they were objectionable. He told the students to print the paper without the articles talking about teen pregnancy and divorce. Former high school students said that the school unfairly censored content.
There were four questions and out of the four, I got 3 labeled as strict interpretation. One was between loose and strict interpretation. The first question they asked was whether the students in school have the same rights as adults in other settings. Even though I don’t believe they are not to the extent of an adults, I disagreed with the “especially in a school setting” part. Maybe that’s just in this case, I’m not sure exactly, I just know that it violated their rights. Anyway, my answer was said to be strict interpretation. The second question asked if the school newspaper is a forum of public expression, and I undoubtedly agree it is. This was also considered strict …show more content…
It did because most people thought the curfew ordinance was unconstitutional and that wasn’t detailed enough. I made this decision after reading each sides of the case. It started when T.M was given a citation by an officer for being out past curfew. T.M said this was unconstitutional and it violated his right to free speech and assembly. The city attorney for Pinellas Park appealed it and stated that it was reasonable for public safety. After being asked 3 questions, I decided that it was unconstitutional. However, I was I was told when the curfew was and T.M’s reason for being out. That I believe would play a big part in my