[goldi]

Last week they refused to hear a couple of cases against public school students who wrote objectionable comments about their principals on a website. The lower courts upheld the students’ rights and the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases, but my newspaper said the Court issued a statement warning the states not to interfere with students’ First Amendment rights.

I was amazed because the students’ actions were pretty outrageous.

[kevkrom]

Last week they refused to hear a couple of cases against public school students who wrote objectionable comments about their principals on a website. The lower courts upheld the students’ rights and the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases, but my newspaper said the Court issued a statement warning the states not to interfere with students’ First Amendment rights. I was amazed because the students’ actions were pretty outrageous.

Outrageous or not, they're still allowed to express themselves, as long as they weren't using school equipment to do so, it's really no business of the school. If they were engaging in libel, that might be a different story, but that's not what they were accused of, was it?

[Paladin2]

"the students’ actions were pretty outrageous."

Welcome to the 1st Amendment.

[Nik Naym]

“I was amazed because the students’ actions were pretty outrageous.”

Yes they were. And outrageous speech is protected.

The SC was correct in this instance also.