ip only, according to Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, "if it is libelous, obscene or harmful to minors, an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or an expression which causes imminent lawless action (172)." Edgar vetoed the bill because it prevented the school board, "the entity ultimately held responsible for the newspaper," to exercise full control over its content. Edgar noted judiciously that the effect of the bill would be "to establish that in Illinois, high school newspapers are public forums," and that the resultant discrepancy between federal and state law would only further confound the issue (173).As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so....
