Freedom of Speech

I have another question for everyone.

It was sparked by this article, in Times-Standard. Apparently, The Bark, the Eureka High School newspaper, had all of its issues pulled from newstands after some students and parents protested the nude drawing in the paper.

Student journalists complain that they were very mature in the article and the discussion of the art. Parents and a few other students wonder if this really belongs in a high school paper.

The problem, of course, is not that they were censored (since school papers are all the time). It is that the student journalists received permission to print the article and art, and then once protests arose, the principal ordered a recall.

There were several other issues discussed as well, such as autonomous papers vs. administration-reviewed, and whether or not it's legal for the principal to censor.

But as I read this article, my concern was with the application of freedom of speech. I understand, of course, that there are a few instances where absolute freedom of speech is something we give up in exchange for a more ordered, peaceful existence. Racial slurs, false accusations, and profanity are just a few example of free speech that we censor for the 'greater good'.

I know that we need these restrictions, or speech would equal chaos.

And as I read the article, I wondered how early freedom of speech starts. Obviously, different environments call for different behavior. At home, at school, at work, around relatives, around friends--each environment calls for different restrictions.

And it's all very complicated.

Okay, now that I'm done being really mature and sensitive about the exceptions, now I'll say what I really think.

Obviously, if the administrators had censored the drawing before the newspaper was printed, I wouldn't complain. It wouldn't even be a news story. But the art was approved, and then when a few people complained, it was yanked from publication.

The money had already been spent, the papers had already been printed. And while people are well within their rights to complain, if the article was tastefully done and it didn't disturb the learning environment unduly, then I don't think it should be an issue. If students don't like it, it's not like the artwork was on the front page. No one who doesn't want to look at it has to.

But that's just my opinion.

So what does everyone else think? And not just about this specific case, either. In general, in high school, in the adult world--where and when does censorship start and end?