ould become a disturbance or a disruption and upheld the primacy of the students' first amendment rights (93). Tinker did not explicitly establish the school as either a public or non-public forum, but the decision did advocate the accommodation of "personal intercommunication among the students" (95) and emphasized that school grounds could not be construed as private property. Stated in The Great Monkey Trial: Science vs. Fundamentalism in America by Tom McGowen, the Slotterback decision went on to discuss "traditional public forum," (129) because ISHS was not a "typical" public forum, the court attempted to categorize the high school by governmental intent, that is, whether a public school was ever meant as a place of public assembly, and access, or whether the property is open and available to an interested party (130). Even a "limited public forum" is subject to the same definition and construction as a public forum, but absent government intent and wide public access, could not be considered as such. Tinker and the rest of the body of standing forum analysis were thereby ruled irrelevant to Slotterback (130).What makes Slotterback significant as a landmark case in censorship law is the court's final area of analysis? The content-neutral regulations requiring advance approval of material by the high school principal (133). The Supreme Court had already identified the perils of such prior restraint. The first is that "unbridled discretion" can lead directly to censorship (133), the second, more indirect, is that the absence of an established time constraint on the designated official's decision cannot be permitted (133). The court therefore ruled that the regulations in question facially invalid (134). The court allowed distribution only at the exit doors, and not at other locations.According to Censorship in Schools by Victoria Sherrow, in 1997, the Illinois State legislature passed House Bill 154, which would have allowed censorsh...
