Dude, I not only remember Kent State (I was a sophomore in high school), I remember the "arm band wars" as we watched the Iowa case and the Court's decision. The administration at my school wisely set aside outdoor space (it was Florida so the weather was nice year-round) for protests, so students could get to class without being disturbed.
So, yes, I remember.
Yet didn't you yourself say there have been rulings since that have narrowed that decision, rulings that recognize the need for schools to guarantee the safety of students and their right to an education?
Courts have ruled in other areas that students at school do NOT have the same rights as private citizens at home. For example, they have fewer protections from unreasonable search and seizure. You could certainly argue that they should have full freedom of speech rights, but that doesn't mean that they do.
(P.S. You don't have to keep lecturing me on the "free marketplace of ideas". I've said more than a few times that I support very few restrictions on free speech for adults.)
Dude, I'm not a dude!
No, I didn't say there have been rulings that have narrowed that decision. There was one ruling, this one, by the 9th Circuit (the most reversed circuit court, BTW).
In general, court decisions at the circuit court level or higher almost always come down on the side of free speech, even within schools.
Gay rights:
Gillman v. Holmes County School District - 2008
A lesbian student reported anti-gay harassment to the school principal, who told her that being gay was wrong and she shouldn't advertise her sexual orientation. Some students showed their support by writing "gay pride" on their arms and clothing. Then the principal invited an anti-gay preacher to speak at the school. The lesbian chick's straight cousin decided to show her support by wearing a rainbow belt and a T-shirt that said "I support gays" to school. The School Board's attorney then proclaimed that all pro-gay symbols and slogans were banned because they would "likely be disruptive and interfere with the educational process."
The court upheld the right of students to express pro-gay messages at school.
Flag-related:
Holloman v. Harland - 2004
The court held that a student's constitutional rights were violated when he was punished after he silently raised his fist during the Pledge of Allegiance. The court wrote that "there must be demonstrable factors that would give rise to any reasonable forecast by the school administration of
substantial and material disruption of school activities before expression may be constitutionally restrained. The court wrote that
there must be a real or substantial threat of disorder, as opposed to the mere possibility of one.
From the ruling: "We cannot simply defer to the specter of disruption or the mere theoretical possibility of discord, or even some de minimis, insubstantial impact on classroom decorum. Particularly given the fact that young people are required by law to spend a substantial portion of their lives in classrooms, student expression may not be suppressed simply because it gives rise to some slight, easily overlooked disruption, including but not limited to a showing of mild curiosity by other students, discussion and comment among students, or
even some hostile remarks or discussion outside of the classrooms by other students."
There are more. They almost always uphold free speech rights, even in the face of some level of disruption in response to the speech.
Disruption by those engaging in the speech can be stopped, obviously, not because of their speech but because of their disruption. But disruption by those who
oppose the message is a problem on the part of the disruptors. The disruptors are the ones who need to be dealt with, not the ones who are exercising their core fundamental right of free speech.
; id. (Merely because “other students may react inappropriately or illegally, such reactions do not justify suppression . . . ”