"The administration was previously unaware of the students' statements in the yearbook.
The district does not support or otherwise endorse any disrespectful or politically based
statements that are in the yearbook and apologizes for the statements that were included,”
said a spokesperson for the district in a statement.

Geez, the problem is from the school itself as they have allowed their students to give their opinion about Trump. A lot of people hate Trump for pete sake.

So, either the faculty member thought this was okay in clear violation of the district's stated policy, or the advisor went MIA letting the kids do anything they wanted.
Of course, the third possibility is, the advisor supported the dedication page and was fine allowing the students to express anti-Trump sentiments.
No matter what, the yearbook faculty advisor needs to be fired.  They had one function -- to make sure crap like this this never happens.

That's probably the case. I remember a school that missed an inappropriate message printed in the yearbook (can't remember what it was). The school district had to reprint the yearbook. You can guess how many students actually turned in their old yearbooks for the new one.

HAMLET, N.C. – Administrators at Richmond Early College High School distributed 22 pre-ordered yearbooks on
Tuesday, only to take them back hours later over “controversial” Donald Trump inspired quotes.

Shortly after school officials distributed the pre-ordered yearbooks, at least one person posted an image of senior
quotes published in the yearbook they found offensive, including one “build that wall” quote critics allege is racist,
the Richmond County Daily Journal.

“So Richmond county school system allowed this to be printed in their 2017 year book (sic),” Artney Ellerbe posted
online, along with a senior photo that’s accompanied by the Donald Trump quote. “I already knew this city was racist.
Get a court date you’ll find out. This doesn’t surprise me at all.”

More recently .... this school thinks a pro-Trump comment is inappropriate.

School administrators cancel yearbooks over Trump ‘build that wall’ senior quote

How the heck is protecting our nation's borders against terrorists and criminals racist?  How is a wall or fence racist?  Walls are race-neutral.  They keep out everyone.

Don't we see walls, fences and bars on doors and windows in urban areas?  Are those people racist?   


http://eagnews.org/school-administrators-cancel-yearbooks-over-trump-build-that-wall-senior-quote/

that's what sickening about the news.
Pres Trump could find a cure for cancer then the news would blame him for taking away funds for cancer research 

The particular speech at issue here is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of whether one goes by the "official" interpretation, the "scholarly" interpretation, the "common" interpretation, or even the "actual and corrupt" interpretation. This is the school's fault for allowing discussion of Trump, or inserting discussion of Trump, possibly against the student's knowledge or will, according to the linked article.

President Obama had in fact shown greater support for free speech than President Trump. What did they each say about Kaepernick, again? (Though neither president actually did anything to strengthen free speech).

This is why I've lost a lot of respect for the politics of certain members on this message board. Not said members themselves, just some of their understandings or political views.

You are correct that school yearbooks are not free speech "platforms" but once a topic has been allowed to be published, in this case by the will of the school and not the student, full free speech protections kick in for the student. The issue of failure to censor is also in this case an accusation against the school, not the student. So if any punishment is warranted here it is for the school, not the student (jailed by Trump).

Furthermore, the speech at question contains no threat. Re-read the quote. "I would like to behead him. I do not like him” is very different from "I will behead him" which would be closer to a threat. Even the latter quote would not go far enough to be considered a true threat, unprotected by the First Amendment, but we don't need to argue over that here.

Eyeeatingfish, the school actually did the right thing in regards to free speech law, by allowing that statement to be published, since they (possibly against district policy) decided to feature a student page about Trump. It would be viewpoint discrimination to allow only positive (or only negative) comments about him. Now what they could have done, according to the "scholarly" interpretation of free speech law in the US, is decide not to talk about Trump at all, as that would only be content discrimination.

Flapp, the student has First Amendment protection because her actual words are not a threat, even more so because they are political and intended to be private. You are thought policing, which is the ultimate intrusion into civil freedom. This does not mean to say that your muddled arguments could not win in court. In fact they could, as you are on the right side! The "corrupt" interpretation and truth of judicial law is that the big guy typically wins when he really wants to. Our government has indeed punished people by inserting words into their mouths and then punishing them for concocted thought crimes. Unfortunately, people like you make it all the easier for them.

Freedom of speech will not actually protect this student. It is merely supposed to. I have said all along that the First Amendment in the USA is in truth nonexistent. It's government propaganda, but it's also the fault of the masses for accepting it, as they do not support free speech and thought either. The responses in this thread illustrate this.

You are correct that school yearbooks are not free speech "platforms" but once a topic has been allowed to be published, in this case by the will of the school and not the student, full free speech protections kick in for the student. The issue of failure to censor is also in this case an accusation against the school, not the student. So if any punishment is warranted here it is for the school, not the student (jailed by Trump).

Furthermore, the speech at question contains no threat. Re-read the quote. "I would like to behead him. I do not like him” is very different from "I will behead him" which would be closer to a threat. Even the latter quote would not go far enough to be considered a true threat, unprotected by the First Amendment, but we don't need to argue over that here.

She indeed does not have right to have her opinion printed in the yearbook, but she isn't the one who did that. The school did, so any punishment for that should be on them. I don't have any disagreement with punishing the school.