Actually this is a prior restraint case.

The gay/straight kids wanted to form the group. The school said no. The ACLU threatened to sue. The school compromised with the ACLU in that school still did not allow the group but put a "hate speech" code into place forbidding the expression of negative opinions about homosexuality. This christian kid saw that as a restraint on his speech and sued.

From the article:
The ACLU worked on the school's policies after officials refused to allow students to start a "Gay Straight Alliance" organization. In an agreement to end a lawsuit over the decision, the district adopted a speech code that defined harassment as "the use of language … in such manner as to be commonly understood to convey hatred, contempt, or prejudice or to have the effect of insulting or stigmatizing an individual," and prescribing punishment for such actions.

The speech code, however, triggered a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Morrison, who feared punishment if he expressed his Christian-based disapproval of homosexuality.


The courts take a VERY DIM view of prior restraint of free speech. Now I know the court has allowed schools to censor some speech (t-shirts with pro-drug or pro gang messages etc) and the school can certainly stop INTIMIDATION (i.e. I'm gonna kill all you fags) but I don't see how any court can uphold the SILENCING of ONE SIDE of a controversial issue especially in advance with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a danger to the public, or the school.