We analyze the studentsÂ’ claims 4 under the well- recognized framework of
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 5 Under
Tinker, students may "express [their] opinions, even on controversial subjects . . . if [they] do[] so without materially and substantially interfering] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others." Id. at 513 (final alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). To "justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion," school officials "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." Id. at 509.
9 That said, "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason— whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Id. at 513. Under
Tinker, schools may prohibit speech that "might reasonably [lead] school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities," or that constitutes an "actual or nascent [interference] with the schoolsÂ’ work or . . . collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone."
https://casetext.com/case/dariano-v-morgan-hill-unified-school-district