Outcome?
�Court held that School could restrict speech encouraging illegal drug use.
�Student 1A rights are not the same as those belonging to adults.
�Under Tinker, the student would have won. But using the Fraser gloss, school need
not show �material disruption� to censor
speech.
�Student�s speech would be protected if this was not a school function.
�Unique concerns presented by the subject matter of the speech; i.e., drug use.
�Query: What
does this ruling mean for other
cases?