officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511, 89 S.Ct. 733. The Tinker Court concluded that the display of armbands was a constitutionally protected form of expression because it was a “silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance” or of “collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 89 S.Ct. 733. The Court concluded: Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right coul 581 (M.D.Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>); Reineke v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 484
holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea holding that students free speech rights were breached by school officials when they prohibited students from peacefully wearing freedom buttons that advocated the lawful and peaceful abolition of racial segregation holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression