High school administrators censored the student newspaper. They don’t think they did anything wrong.

The First Amendment and California law require administrators to stay out of newsroom decisions.

Shutterstock

Dozens of young people stood in a San Francisco park lined with palm trees and town homes, holding a long white banner that read in bold black font: “STUDENTS FIGHT BACK!” Below, highlighted against a red background: “AGAINST ZIONISM — AGAINST TRUMP’S BILLIONAIRE AGENDA — AGAINST MASS DEPORTATIONS.”

In February, that image appeared on the front page of The Redwood Bark, the student newspaper for Redwood High School in Marin County, California. Front-page photos are meant to grab attention and raise questions, but this one prompted an investigation into the paper itself. This was after administrators ordered the removal of The Bark’s Instagram post this same semester for noting that Marin County was mentioned in the Epstein files.

These acts of censorship are bad, but administrators’ continued characterization of them as benign or, worse, necessary forces us to weigh in. But even after FIRE’s advocacy interventions, these administrators still haven’t budged an inch. So we’ll spell it out.

Eye-catching cover sparks eyebrow-raising probe

The paper’s troubles started with coverage of the local student protest at Dolores Park in San Francisco, including a photo of the banner described above. That image captured a tense moment in local news, and sparked debate and backlash among community members, which is generally a reliable mark of good journalism.

But, feeling the pressure, the student editors-in-chief decided to publish a letter “acknowledging that this image caused pain and concern for some readers, particularly some members of our Jewish community.” They added, however, that the paper’s “responsibility is to present reality as it occurred.”

Days later, an individual wrote to school leaders, “I am worried that Redwood’s student paper decided to publish an image of a protest slogan about Zionism that has increasingly been used as an antisemitic slur.”

Ultimately, the complaints culminated in the district’s senior director of student services sending an email to the newspaper adviser with the subject line, “Notice of Investigation.” The email said an independent investigator had been assigned “to conduct a thorough and neutral review of the complaints filed” about the image. Courtney Goode, the superintendent for the Tamalpais Union High School District, characterized the investigation as concerning “harassment and discrimination.”

Epstein reporting taken down

As noted above, The Bark had also recently posted on Instagram a rundown of all the Marin County towns that were mentioned in the Epstein files.

Like other news outlets, they sought to make a national story local. But this reporting would land them at the center of another controversy. The Bark mentioned French national Gisele Attias Bonnouvrier as “providing models to Epstein.” Not long after, the principal of Redwood High received an email from someone claiming to be Bonnouvrier herself. The person sending the email demanded the removal of her name from the post, threatening a lawsuit if the school did not comply.

“I have a directive from the cabinet and superintendent,” the principal wrote to The Bark staff, “to redact the one name immediately from the post.”

And just like that, based on a single email from an unverified source, school administrators censored their own student journalists.

High school admins aren’t the arbiters of the law

The administrators’ actions caught the attention of local news in late April. FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative wrote the school district on May 6, urging them to end the investigation into The Bark’s front page image and to promise not to interfere with its content again — such as by demanding the takedown of social media posts — both of which violate constitutional obligations and California state law.

As FIRE explained, The Bark is a “limited public forum” — a phrase found on its own website — which, under the Supreme Court’s Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, receives greater student press protections than those afforded to curricular or school-sponsored publications. In cases like this, school officials are held to the more deferential standard articulated in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Under the Tinker test, administrators can only regulate student speech if it is unlawful or likely to create a substantial disruption to the school day. In addition, California’s Student Free Expression Law specifically protects the editorial decisions of student journalists.

The photo and The Bark’s decision to run it were protected expression. The school’s characterization of the photo as potential “harassment and discrimination” was deeply misguided and shouldn’t have led to this investigation. FIRE’s letter spelled out how the paper’s front page couldn’t be investigated for discriminatory harassment, which the Supreme Court has narrowly defined as conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it “detracts from the victims’ education experience.” A single photo on the front of a newspaper falls well short of that standard.

---

---

And that’s where the core of the free speech concerns lie for The Bark. The question isn’t just whether a school ultimately punishes a speaker after an investigation. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, the question is whether the institution’s actions would “chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” That decision is binding on the school district, and an investigation into protected student journalism would do just that.

Then there’s the demand to take down the Instagram post about the Epstein files. While Tinker and California state law recognize exceptions for defamatory student speech, The Bark’s post still warrants protection. That’s because, even assuming the underlying allegation about Bonnouvrier amounts to libel, the post falls within the “fair report” privilege, which protects fair and accurate reporting on official government proceedings, including federal investigations. In other words, The Bark had the right to name the French national in the context of reporting on the content of the Epstein files. Even more concerning is reporting that Goode admitted “no legal analysis was done before issuing the directive to remove the woman’s name.”

Goode responded to FIRE’s initial letter, saying the district “has a long-standing commitment to student journalism” and “remains fully committed to upholding student free expression rights consistent with California law.” The district characterized both matters as “resolved.”

As for the investigation? As Goode put it herself, “There is no investigation.” But, she added, “when concerns are raised through the formal complaint process, the district is required to review them.” But none of this, she promised, will “limit student editorial decision-making or student press rights.”

Thankfully, no single administrator’s belief, however well-intended, is the legal standard. FIRE responded, pointing out that the school had emailed The Bark adviser with a “notification of investigation,” suggesting that the school was, you know, notifying the paper of an investigation. We made clear that nothing in our position required the district to ignore complaints or decline to provide resources to those offended by the image. But when the school receives a complaint about speech, the correct approach is to conduct a preliminary, internal review rather than sending an ominous email announcing an investigation. That would allow the district to handle complaints and offer support without chilling speech.

The district disagreed, saying it “remains fully committed to student free expression rights consistent with California law” and that “student editors make the decisions about what they publish.” The student journalists at The Bark deserve better. Its advisor has taken an unpaid leave of absence through June 2027, reportedly in protest. Regardless of whether the district wants to admit it, its actions aren’t aligned with its obligations to the student press.

What we have now are promises that the district better keep. FIRE will be watching.