Island Trees and Free Speech: The Consequences of the U.S.’s Current Philosophy on Speech

Island Trees v. Pico (1982) has resulted in a complex legal landscape for the First Amendment repression of free speech in school libraries. This repression is intensified by contradicting legal philosophy used to judge these cases. By examining three cases following the precedent set by Island Trees v. Pico (1982), and the case of Island Trees itself, this paper will illustrate the differences between the primary guiding free speech philosophy used for other rulings and the philosophy used by the courts in cases regarding speech in school libraries. This text uses a four-pronged speech value evaluation to analyze whether speech is for the speaker, the audience, the parents’, or the students. The results of this evaluation showcase the muddied precedent that Island Trees has left in the U.S.’s legal landscape, and the ways different interests are abusing this precedent to excuse unethical and unconstitutional censorship. This text proposes a categorical value approach similar to the ones used in other free speech cases, which can be used to mediate the delicate balance between necessary censorship and the constitutional rights of all involved parties.