Justice Brennan wrote the dissenting opinion to argue that the principal did in fact violate the students’ first amendment (Linder para 27). He claims that there was no clear warning that the principal would remove two whole pages of the paper, and that he had no jurisdiction to do so (Linder para 27). There was never a chance for the students to bring their case upon the principal or ask for a delay of the paper to correct their mistakes. The content of the paper was considered more “sensitive” than as a serious distraction towards the students from their studies (Linder para 28). It is hard to argue a case that the school will erupt into chaos because a child speaks out about the hardships of divorced parents. It is more reasonable to assume
