My firms argument is extensivley supported through past precedent of the supremse court. The issue in Miller vs. California was the following: Whether, consistent with the First Amendment, unsolicited mass mailings to advertise books containing explicit pictures of sexual activities can be criminally prosecuted . The Supreme Court ruled that the mailing of obscene material was not pemitted in accord with first amendment rights. They set three a criteria which must be met in order for the work to be legitimley subject to state regulation. Native Son by Richard Wright meets all three criteria. One: It describes sexual conduct. Two: the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious educational value and third :the average person applyting community standards must find that the work applies to prurient standards. The court permited state regulation of obscene material.

In Board of Education v. Pico, a case was brought to the Supreme Court which questioned the constitutionality of the Board of Education's decision to ban certain books from its high school libraries, based on their content? The court ruled The North Shore Hebrew Academy is a private school and therefore is not under the control of the board of education.

In Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier a case was brought to the court where students objected to the removal of articles in the school newspaper deemed “inappropriate” by the principle. The court decided at the deletion of articles did not violate the students’ rights under the first amendment. The Supreme Court decided that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First

Supreme court has a history of putting a limit on obscene material. . My colleague will further elaborate on the obscene material/ content of Native Son." By following past precedent we can apply the actions of the supreme court years ago to the present case at hand.Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful