Freedom Forum

A former Indiana high school student is asking the Supreme Court to take up a case involving an anti-abortion flyer and student free speech rights in public schools. Attorneys want the high court to clarify Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), a 38-year-old ruling that gave schools the ability to restrict speech occurring within a “school-sponsored expressive activity,” as long as the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate educational concern.
Hazelwood allows schools more control over speech than the standard established under the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. That standard applies to most other student speech and says public schools can only restrict speech if they can show it will cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or invade others’ rights.
The Indiana student, identified in the lawsuit as E.D., argues that Tinker, not Hazelwood, should apply in her case because her speech occurred in the context of an after-school club, not as part of a class.
In 2021, E.D. started a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School and wanted to advertise the club’s first meeting with flyers. E.D. used a template disseminated by the national organization, which included pictures of students holding signs that read “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “I Am the Pro-Life Generation.”
School officials rejected the flyers and told E.D. to post ones with only the meeting information to comply with the school’s “unofficial custom” for wall postings, saying the inclusion of the photos, alongside information about the club’s meeting location and time, made the flyers political in nature.
In 2022, E.D. and her parents sued the school district, saying it violated her rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act. Two lower courts held that the club’s flyers could be viewed as content endorsed by the school and applied the more school-friendly Hazelwood standard.
E.D.’s lawyers say the Hazelwood decision has “produced a patchwork of constitutional protections,” meaning E.D.’s case could have a different outcome depending on how a court is interpreting the precedent. They noted there are three interpretations of Hazelwood: One says it applies whenever an outside observer might think the school endorses the speech in question. The second says it applies only to school-organized activities, including after-school clubs. The third says it applies only to speech occurring within the classroom and curriculum.
E.D.’s petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify this “deep, longstanding circuit split” and further argues that the court should adopt the third (and most speech-protective) interpretation.

More from Freedom Forum: ‘A Guide to Student Free Speech’

A judge has ruled that Tennessee prison officials must give reporters expanded access to view state-run executions.
The decision is a victory for a coalition of local and national news outlets that filed a lawsuit last October alleging state protocols violate the Tennessee Constitution and the First Amendment by preventing journalists from witnessing the entire lethal injection process.
Prison officials argued the First Amendment doesn’t give the news media special access to information that isn’t usually available to the public. Officials also said the restrictions are necessary to protect the safety of prison security and those involved in executions.
But on Jan. 16, an order by Chancellor I’Ashea L. Myles granted a temporary injunction allowing members of the media and other witnesses to see most of the execution process, while setting out security procedures for those involved.
Chancellor Myles applied the Supreme Court’s long-standing test for whether the press and public have a First Amendment right to attend criminal proceedings. This involves asking whether both “history” and “logic” mandate a First Amendment right of access.
She ruled that executions are part of the criminal trial process. Myles further ruled that they have historically been witnessed by at least some members of the public and that openness serves an important function, writing, “This Court finds that a meaningful and full observation of executions allows the public to assess whether the state carries out death sentences in a lawful and humane manner and ensures that the execution process remains subject to democratic oversight.”

Related: ‘Does the First Amendment Guarantee Public Access to Trials and Court Proceedings?’

On Oct. 15, 2025, JJ Green, the national security correspondent for Washington, D.C., news radio station WTOP, was among those who handed in their press credentials and walked out of the Pentagon instead of signing its new media access policy. For Green, that was the moment the danger of disinformation went from abstract and distant — something he says happens in places like Russia, China or North Korea — to concrete and personal.
As a result, Green was inspired to write “The Noise War: How to Fight Disinformation and Find the Truth When Everything is Lying to You.” Green tells the “E&P Reports” video podcast his book contends that disinformation is not just bad reporting; it’s systemic and intentional, with the goal of flooding the news cycle with so many falsehoods that attention turns into apathy.
“It’s not designed to persuade you one way or the other,” Green said. “It’s designed to make you give up, trying to figure out what’s going on, exhausted with all of the chaos.”
Green says “The Noise War” isn’t just meant to sit on a shelf. It’s a practical manual for reporters that urges them to educate themselves and their audiences to fight to protect journalism and the truth.
“Disinformation is never going to die,” Green says. “What we have to do is consistently, constantly, daily think about how we’re going to navigate when we’re hit by a disinformation storm.”

More from Freedom Forum: ‘Misinformation vs. Disinformation: What’s the Difference, and Are They Protected Speech?’

The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis last month galvanized thousands to use their First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly to march and strike against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations. Then, last week, musicians Bruce Springsteen and Billy Bragg lifted their voices in two new songs about the events in Minnesota. Springsteen dedicated his song “Streets of Minneapolis” to the people of that city, while Bragg created “City of Heroes” to celebrate local residents. The singers are part of a long tradition of artists using their right to free expression to craft protest songs. Discover more such tracks and the stories behind them in our list of modern protest anthems here.

nonprofit software