The Times has an editorial today about the BHFJ case- pretty interesting stuff. This letter was most interesting to me, as it offered an educators perspective:

To the Editor:

As educators, we are charged with the duty not just to educate our young people but to help mold them into moral adults. This “mission” does not always agree with the precept of free speech.

No student in my middle school classroom may speak to me or to any other student with disrespect or in a hurtful manner. I also expect my students to limit conversations during class time to the topics I pick. Does this violate the students’ rights to free speech? You bet it does! Should it carry out of the classroom? I believe that it should.

I hope that any educator who sees his student behaving in a destructive manner will step in and speak up. I hope that someday my students thank me for this “violation” of their constitutional rights, just as I hope that the Alaska student realizes someday that his principal was acting in what he believed to be the student’s best interest.

Claire Hirschhorn
Fair Lawn, N.J., March 20, 2007

But Decius, to answer your question: there are limitations on free speech in plenty of situations ("shouting fire" in a crowded theater, for example.) In school this is particularly true. The courts have given schools wide discretion in surpressing speech that is sexual, gang-related, and drug-related, among other things deemed "disruptive." However, for the most part political speech is protected, even if it is mildly disruptive (black arm bands, for example.)

So yes, the content really made a difference here. But all the same I think the court will come down for the kid because of the extenuating circumstances (and also because the school's argument was just really unconvincing.)