lways between class periods (120). Interboro Senior High School Principal Nicholas Cianci resolved that Slotterback would be permitted to distribute his materials only twice more during the school year, could occur only around the building's exit doors and would have to occur after school hours without "argument, fight or litter (122)."Between April and June of 1990, the school district developed a new procedure policy for non-school written materials, which stated that the content and dates of distribution of all publications had to be approved in advance by the principal. Slotterback nevertheless continued to pass out his fliers and booklets, without apparent disruption of the school curriculum (125). He also registered a legal action stating that the requirements of the school's notification policy represented unconstitutional prior restraints. The school, in its defense, invoked the lessons of Blackwell, claiming its policy represented only the minimum regulation necessary to maintain a functional education environment (126).The court's reasoning in the case's final disposition draws heavily from a field of law referred to as "forum analysis" (126). There is much case law debating the concept of forum analysis, not all of it, obviously, is relevant here or otherwise especially useful. The cornerstone case of most forum analysis, according to Freedom of Speech by Gerald Leinwand, is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969. This case, which reached the Supreme Court, involved a high school student and his younger sister, who wore black armbands into school in protest of the Vietnam War (87). The principals of the students' schools adopted policies threatening students who wore such armbands with suspension. The Tinker children defied the policy and were suspended (92).The Supreme Court's decision maintained that school authorities did not have sufficient reason to anticipate that the wearing of the arm bands w...
