Introduction
Free speech — commonly referred to as freedom of expression — is the right of individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation or censorship. It is not merely a cultural value but a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed by international human rights law. In the context of the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution codifies this right, protecting a broad range of expressive conduct. However, the scope of this freedom becomes increasingly complex within educational institutions, particularly in the balancing act between student autonomy and institutional control. Across American campuses, the tension between legal rights and school rules reveals a sobering reality that free speech for students is more often theoretical.
II. Legal Foundations of Student Free Speech
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects fundamental rights including freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Within the public school system, students generally retain these rights. They are allowed to express themselves, speak their minds, and engage in peaceful protest — even if their views are unpopular. Yet, these freedoms are not absolute. Schools may impose restrictions under certain conditions, particularly when speech is deemed substantially disruptive to the learning environment or if it qualifies as libelous or incites violence.
The Landmark Case: Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
One of the most influential legal precedents concerning student free speech is Tinker v. Des Moines. The case originated when a group of students at a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to silently protest the Vietnam War. Despite prior warnings from school administrators, the students proceeded with their protest and were subsequently suspended. Their parents filed a lawsuit claiming that the suspension violated their children’s constitutional rights.
Although both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school, the United States Supreme Court ultimately reversed these decisions. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates.” This decision set a powerful precedent that continues to shape legal interpretations of student expression. As law professor Emily Gold Waldman noted, “Tinker doesn’t have some of the complexities that you see in some cases today. It lays out broad principles, but it’s up to schools and courts to define them.”[1]
Beyond Tinker: Bethel v. Fraser and Mahanoy v. B.L.
The scope of Tinker was later narrowed in subsequent decisions such as Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. In Bethel, the Court upheld a school’s decision to discipline a student for delivering a speech containing vulgar language. Even though there was no substantial disruption, the Court sided with the school, emphasizing its role in teaching socially acceptable behavior.[2]
In Mahanoy, a high school student was suspended from the junior varsity cheerleading squad after posting a Snapchat selfie over the weekend — outside school grounds — complaining, among other things, “fuck cheer.” Although the post was made off-campus, a fellow student shared it with school officials which prompted disciplinary action. The student and her family sued the school district, reigniting the debate over whether schools can regulate off-campus speech.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the student, affirming that off-campus speech is entitled to significant First Amendment protection. Nonetheless, it also clarified that schools might intervene when such speech causes a “substantial disruption” to the educational environment.[3]
III. Limits to Student Expression
Off-Campus Speech and Social Media
The Mahanoy ruling has significant implications for off-campus speech, especially in the age of social media. While students generally enjoy broader protections for off-campus expression, these rights are not unlimited. Schools retain the authority to punish students for speech made outside school hours if such expression materially disrupts the school environment.
Moreover, while students may have rights under the First Amendment, social media platforms themselves are private entities with their own speech protections. These companies are not bound by the First Amendment and possess their own rights to moderate content. Therefore, while a student may express themselves freely on a platform like Snapchat, the platform can lawfully remove content without infringing on constitutional rights — and the government cannot compel them to do otherwise. [4]
School Disciplinary Power and Political Protest
Controversies have also arisen around students engaging in political activism during school hours. While students are allowed to protest or walk out of class for political causes, schools are permitted to enforce attendance policies. However, they cannot punish students more harshly for missing class for a protest than for other absences. The distinction lies in ensuring content neutrality: discipline must not be applied in a way that targets political expression disproportionately.
According to recent findings, more than 1,000 U.S. students have been punished over speech-related issues since 2020. This includes more than 300 instances of formal censorship, 72 suspensions, and 55 cases of students being “separated from their institution or its funding.” Particularly during moments of national political tension — such as the racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder or the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in response to the 2023–2024 conflict in Gaza — schools have displayed a marked willingness to penalize expressive conduct.
At the University of Florida, for example, student protestors were handed flyers warning them of a “3-year trespass and suspension” for violating rules that were neither part of official policy nor publicly codified. Such actions underscore the opacity and arbitrariness that often accompany institutional enforcement of speech policies.[5]
Censorship in Classrooms and Student Media
Students also face challenges within classrooms and school-sponsored publications. Although students have broad rights to express their views, schools may adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression. For instance, prohibiting leaflet distribution during class time is permissible, whereas doing so during lunch or after school is not.
Crucially, content-based censorship is generally prohibited unless the expression falls into one of three categories: (1) it is legally obscene, (2) it is libelous or slanderous, or (3) it incites unlawful behavior or substantially disrupts school operations. This means that even controversial or politically charged expressions cannot be censored simply because it is in “bad taste” or unpopular with school officials.
Nonetheless, schools may, under limited circumstances, discipline students for speech made off campus, particularly if such speech causes material and substantial disruption. Administrators may argue that discussions about war, politics, or budget cuts are too controversial, but censorship is only permitted when there is concrete evidence of disruption or unlawful incitement.
Who Loses Out the Most?
While all students may face restrictions on their speech, the burden of censorship is not distributed equally. Racial minorities and student journalists are disproportionately affected, often finding their voices stifled when they attempt to speak out on issues of identity, justice, or institutional accountability.
In 2020, during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, numerous Black students who led school-based protests or posted about racial justice were met not with dialogue, but with disciplinary action — suspensions, expulsions, and warnings. For instance, at New York’s Stuyvesant High School, students who organized walkouts to protest police violence faced administrative pushback, including threats of suspension, despite the protests being peaceful and within their rights.
Student journalists, especially those in public high schools, face a precarious position. When they investigate topics such as school funding, teacher misconduct, or district politics, their publications are frequently censored or shut down. At Alexandria City High School in Virginia, the student newspaper, Theogony, published an investigative series about challenges in rolling out a new high school campus. In response, the administration began enforcing a policy requiring prior review of all articles by the principal, a move the students argued was an attempt to suppress critical reporting.[6]
Similarly, at San Francisco’s Lowell High School, a journalism teacher and student newspaper adviser claimed he was reassigned due to controversial student reporting, including an article about students allegedly being verbally harassed by teachers. The administration’s response to the article sparked significant tension on campus and raised concerns about the suppression of student journalism. [7]
IV. Real-World Cases
The current wave of youth censorship includes the banning of books and the passage of anti-critical race theory legislation in at least 28 states. In high schools across the nation, student journalists report that censorship immobilizes their ability to inform their communities and undermines their role as emerging civic participants.
Responding to such suppression, students have begun organizing resistance efforts. The Student Press Law Center has been instrumental in advocating for “New Voices” legislation at the state level. These laws aim to grant students editorial control over their publications and shield them from arbitrary censorship. As of early 2025, seventeen states have adopted such laws, reflecting a growing national momentum toward protecting student press freedom. [8]
V. Ethical Considerations and Evolving Legal Thought
Schools often justify speech restrictions by invoking their status as government-funded institutions. Given that public schools in the United States are largely financed by federal and state governments[9], there is a political incentive in shaping student conduct and speech. Indeed, some may argue that such regulation serves as a mechanism for political indoctrination. In this view, the government exerts control over student expression to cultivate a generation aligned with its own ideological priorities. The education system, in this critique, becomes a vehicle for manufacturing patriotic loyalty by controlling permissible discourse.
Conversely, one could argue that schools are attempting to shield themselves and their students from potential harm. In a political climate where freedom of speech is deeply contentious, administrators may be acting out of a desire for institutional self-preservation in the face of governmental and public scrutiny.
Proponents of expanded student speech rights maintain that the current environment is overly restrictive. They assert that students — particularly teenagers — should possess speech rights comparable to adults. This argument rests on the conviction that robust speech protections are necessary for genuine self-expression and democratic participation.
Legal scholars and student advocacy groups present a spectrum of proposals regarding how the law should evolve. Some call for stronger legal protections to encourage the free exchange of ideas, empower marginalized voices, and deter government overreach. Others favor a more nuanced approach that balances speech rights with broader values such as inclusivity, protection from harm, and the promotion of civil discourse.
VI. Conclusion
The promise of free speech on campus is powerful, but its reality is riddled with caveats. Students are told they have the right to speak, yet they are often punished when they do, especially if their speech challenges institutional authority or political orthodoxy. While landmark court rulings like Tinker and Mahanoy affirm the principle of student expression, they also highlight its limits, especially when schools themselves invoke the need for order or civility.
At the heart of this issue lies a contradiction: schools are meant to prepare young people for democratic participation, yet often fail to model democratic values themselves. And when this censorship becomes the norm, students may come to associate civic education with adherence to authority rather than democratic discourse. Until student voices are treated not as disruptions, but as integral to the civic fabric, the First Amendment promise will remain unfulfilled within the schoolhouse gates.
FOOTNOTES
COMING SOON
"The Illusion of Free Speech
On Campus"
COMPOSITION by: SIDNI PRAGITA KUSNONINGSIH ✦ SINGAPORE