Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start 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

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Yeo vs. Town of Lexington Case

No description

Suzie McMurtry

on 9 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Yeo vs. Town of Lexington Case

Yeo vs. Lexington case Douglas Yeo was a parent who lived in Lexington, Massachusetts. Yeo submitted an ad for sexual abstinence to the school's yearbook and magazine (the Lexington Musket) And so the ad was rejected by the student editors of both publications after the rejection of his ad, Yeo sued the Lexington School District for abridging his First Amendment (freedom of speech and press) and the Fourteenth Amendment (right to due process) The proposed ad was as follows: "We know you can do it!
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.
Full transcript