Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Yeo vs. Town of Lexington Case
Transcript of Yeo vs. Town of Lexington Case
ABSTINENCE: The Healthy Choice Sponsored by: Lexington Parents Information Network (LEXNET) Post office box 513, Lexington, Massachusetts, 02173^7" The ad was tied to a dispute regarding the Lexington school committee's decision to allow condoms to be made available to students, a decision that Yeo and many parents were against. Yeo founded LEXNET, which funded the ad The court ruled that student editors should not be considered "state actors" because decisions made by student editors are not attributable to the school Students felt that the advertising in the Yearbook should be limited to "congratulatory messages to the graduating class" This gives students/ student editors full control and responsibility of the things they are publishing. for example...
If students choose to publish something scandalous, they are the ones who face the consequences. Or, in this case, if they chose not to publish something, they cannot be punished choosing not to publish it. At first, the local and state courts sided with Yeo, arguing that the school played a role in the publication of the yearbook. However, it was later acknowledged that it was the students' decisions and that the school played no role in the publication.