Oh, and RJLigier: No way are these going to remain blocked. The chief circumstances in which restrictions on student speech or access to information have been upheld involve the potential for disruption of educational activities and/or content that is sexually indecent (even if not quite obscene).

For the former – the risk of disruption must be significant and immediate, and the disruption itself substantial. Tinker v. Des Moines – the famous “black armband” case – extended constitutional protection to students who wore the armbands to protest the Vietnam War, because the high Court found that this conduct would NOT be sufficiently disruptive of the school’s educational mission. And this was at the height of the controversy – in 1969. Disagreement over Vietnam drove apart entire families, across the country. While there are still a few places where homosexuality is that controversial, I don’t think that, on average, it could possibly be MORE so in 2009 than Vietnam was in 1969. (And can there possibly BE anything more “disruptive” of an educational mission than restricting students’ access to both sides of a complex, ongoing social debate?!?)

For the latter – indecency, in the setting of constitutional law, is defined as “having a tendency to excite a prurient [i.e., lustful] interest in the mind of the audience”. Admittedly, this is to some extent a subjective standard – i.e., the boundary for indecency does depend somewhat on the people in the setting. Even so, I don’t think there’s even a remote chance that sites like HRC, PFLAG, and GLSEN, addressing as they do the *social and legal* matters surrounding GLBTQ-ness, could be regarded as indecent. I presume the school is hanging its hat on a sort of ill-defined ramble about how sexual orientation necessarily implies sex – but this can be shot down with a spitball and a soda straw. A, sites OPPOSING GLBTQ equality would “imply” sex in exactly the same way. And B, if a limited, cursory mention of an orientation or attraction is tantamount to selling “sex”, then high schools would also be able to toss out of their libraries any teen novel that so much as mentions DATING (because dating implies attraction, and we all know where THAT often goes!) Yet we don’t see that happening – which just re-emphasizes the viewpoint-discriminatory and animus-laden quality of Central High’s actions. (And note that “time, place and manner” restrictions in general cannot even discriminate on the basis of CONTENT of speech, much less specific viewpoints within a given set of content!)

It’s a clear case. Now these brave students and their attorneys just have to undertake the effort of sticking the school to it. Good luck and Godspeed!

Lets just relable the south the Homophobic States of America.

And yes, I support the ACLU also.

Its tough time, but send a donation to show your support

No, it’s not already decided.

Actually, it hasn’t been decided in “other” venues. I know and you know the sites will be unblocked.
Ken
San Francisco

I am currently in high school and my school also blocks LGBT sites. Of the major sites that are blocked are this one, the Point Foundation, and the Day of Silence website. But they do not even try to hide why they are blocking it, when you try to go to the sites it comes up as ‘Gay and Lesbian.’

The students should certainly win in this case. If the school is supported in this it’s just another show to LGBT students that their schools do not care about them nor will they protect them.