MASSACHUSETTS -- A federal free-speech lawsuit between a
former Hudson High School student and the district settled almost three years
after administrators censored a conservative club's posters, the Rutherford
Institute announced today. In the settlement, which was reached on the eve of
trial in March, officials agreed to amend school policy to forbid censorship of
student expression based on political viewpoints. Christopher Bowler brought suit against Hudson in early 2005 after
administrators forced him to take down posters advertising the first meeting of
the Conservative Club, a new student organization he started. Bowler founded the
club during the fall of 2004 and chose to affiliate it with the High School
Conservative Clubs of America. He used the HSCCA's Web address, www.hscca.org, on the posters. A staff member later warned the administration that the Web site contained
"several links to violent and brutal beheadings," according to court documents.
The Web site had four links to videos of jihadist beheadings of Americans and a
still shot of one of the videos. The school immediately blocked access to the
HSCCA Web site from the school network, and the club was forced to take down the
posters in early December 2004. The students were allowed to re-hang the posters
in January 2005 but asked to remove them again that month. The administration
later allowed the club to hang up the posters with the Web address marked out.
The students also were allowed to write "censored" over the address. "It was the concern of school officials that the exposure of students to
those gruesome and graphic images would be harmful to students," said John
Davis, the school district's attorney. The school moved for summary judgment early in the case, arguing that the
"graphic content of the videos could impinge on the rights of other students"
and that the videos could materially and substantially disrupt the school
environment, according to court documents. Under the standard set in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, school officials cannot
censor student speech unless they can reasonably forecast that the speech will
cause a substantial disruption to the school or invade the rights of others.
But Bowler and others in the club argued that the beheading videos were a
pretext used to censor the club's controversial politics. Bowler said he heard
teachers in the hallway talking about the club, saying it would spread
intolerance and hatred. Assistant Principal David Champigny told Bowler that he supported the club
but many teachers were uncomfortable and offended by the message the HSCCA was
sending. Champigny then said the posters had to be taken down because of the
beheadings on the Web site. U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris ruled in October of 2007 that
Hudson officials had not met the Tinker standard because the students did
not advertise the beheadings on the club's posters; students who viewed the
beheadings would be doing so by their own choice. "When students are exposed to speech only as a consequence of voluntary
choice, the speaker has not invaded the rights of others," Saris wrote in her
decision allowing the case to continue. It is inevitable that people will be exposed to shocking viewpoints that do
not match up with their own, said John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford
Institute, which represented Bowler. "The whole purpose of First Amendment is to protect offensive speech,"
Whitehead said. "I don't agree with Bowler's point of view, but, like Voltaire
said, we should fight to the death to defend the Bowlers of the world." Whitehead also noted that the school's actions were ironic considering
Hudson High School is one of 11 pilot schools in a First Amendment Schools
program. This national program was created by the First Amendment Center as a
way to change how schools teach and practice the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, according to the Center's Web
site. The school district maintains that the case was never about political
viewpoints but about the school's right to make the students take the URL off
the posters. "The plaintiffs claimed that school officials did not have the right to ask
them to take the Web site off of the posters," Davis said. "When they agreed to
dismiss the case, we took that as an admission on their part that it was not
wrong for the officials to require the students to remove the Web site." The school has already changed the language of its non-discrimination
policies to explicitly forbid censorship based on political views. "The school has always had several non-discrimination policies and these
included gender, race, ethnicity and religion, among other things," Davis said.
"The Hudson School Committee has tweaked the policies [in March] to include
language regarding political views." Davis added that these revised policies are
already in effect in the district. Bowler said he is happy with the settlement and views it as a victory for
freedom of speech and freedom of expression. "I am glad that the administration has finally recognized that if this
school is going to pride itself on a democratic environment that emphasizes free
speech, that includes all viewpoints," he said.
© 2008 Student Press Law Center