be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. That provision means what it says.... [W]e do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513, 89 S.Ct. 733. Consistent with Tinker, the Eleventh Circuit and its courts have protected the free speech rights of students when such speech was unaccompanied by “material and substantial disruption” or “collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.” See, e.g., Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir.1966) (<HOLDING>) ; Johnston-Loehner v. O’Brien, 859 F.Supp.
holding unconstitutional a free transfer provision by which students were allowed to transfer solely on a racial basis from the school to which they had been assigned by virtue of redistricting if they were in a racial minority in their new school 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 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 officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom