1. Facts of the case

A school paper and yearbook allowed businesses and non-profit organizations to put advertisements in their publications. The paper and yearbook refused to publish ads placed by Douglas Yeo based on the assumption that they were controversial while claiming to have a non-public forum. The publications also claimed that no state action was involved in the student's denial of the advertisements.

2. Allegations of the case

Douglas Yeo alleged that the refusal of the public high school's newspaper and yearbook to print his advertisements violated his free speech and equal protection rights.

3. Issues of law to be resolved

The court must determine if state action existed on the part of the school publications. The court must also decide whether the publications constituted a public forum or a non-public forum.

4. The court's holding

The court's holding was that the publications involved were limited public fora, and therefore, their refusal to run the advertisements was inappropriate. Further, the court held that state action existed in the refusal of the publications to run the advertisements.

5. The court's reasoning

With regard to the decision that state action existed in the refusals, the court cited the fact that faculty and administrators directed the publications. This, along with the fact that state monies were used to finance the publications, was sufficient to warrant state action as defined by the court. With regard to the type of forum, the court cited the fact that others were allowed to use this forum to communicate their products and services as well as the fact that no organization had ever been denied the placement of an advertisement in the past.

6. The court's order

The lower courts decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

7. The principles involved

The action of the school publications violates freedom of speech because the school publications are extensions of the school system. Furthermore, time, place, and manner restrictions may be utilized but cannot restrict speech based on the viewpoint of that speech. Furthermore, once a state agency permits organizations to communicate through its channels a forum is created that is, at least, a limited open forum.

8. The implications of the case

The decision of this case implies that one cannot be denied their right to free speech. It does not stop school publications from banning speech that is inappropriate as long as that decision will hold up to the First Amendment muster under strict scrutiny or reasonableness review.

9. Functions of government affected

This ruling permits school publications to restrict specific speech. However, the decision implies they are required to have a legitimate reserved purpose in mind which is in accordance with clearly articulated safeguards to protect against the censorship of speech based upon one's viewpoint.