Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist. No. 204

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Tinker endorsed both the heckler's veto doctrine and the substantial-disruption test and concluding that other students’ harassment of \Zamecnik because of their disapproval of her [\Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt] is not a permissible ground for banning it”
• noting that Tinker endorsed both the heckler’s veto doctrine and the substantial-disruption test and concluding that other students’ harassment of “Zamecnik because of their disapproval of her [“Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt] is not a permissible ground for banning it”
• denying that a school could discipline students for wearing shirts saying “Be Happy, Not Gay,” and noting that there is no established “‘hurt feelings’ defense to a high school's violation of the First Amendment rights of its students”
• looking to the reactions of onlookers to determine whether the speech could be regulated
• upholding a student’s right to wear a shirt that read, “Be Happy, Not Gay”
• rejecting the heckler’s veto “because the speech had contained no fighting words”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).