Law for Business 10th Edition by James Barnes,Terry Dworkin,Eric Richards

تمرين 5

The Lexington School Committee decided to distribute condoms and informational packets about their proper use as a part of "safe sex" education to high school students without parental consent. This became an extremely divisive issue in the community. The local high school newspaper took a strong editorial position in favor of making condoms freely available at the school. Douglas Yeo was among the Lexington parents who opposed the new policy. He helped organize a group, LEXNET, whose stated purpose was to help inform Lexington parents about public school issues. Yeo attempted to run ads in the school newspaper encouraging students to practice abstinence and providing an address for LEXNET, but the newspaper refused to print the ad. After Yeo complained, school administrators urged the student editors to carefully reconsider their position. However, they also made it clear that they supported the students' right to decide. After the students again rejected the ad, Yeo sued on the ground that the refusal violated his constitutional right to free speech. The officials contended that Yeo's claim was without merit because there was no state action. Specifically, they asserted that the decision to reject Yeo's ad was made by the student editors and that they are not governmental actors. Was the decision to reject the ads state action?