Originally Posted by
Mistral
Easy. The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from direct government interference. Furthermore, the United States operates under a common law system common to almost all Anglosphere nations; it therefore takes into account case precedent and judicial decisions as well as the letter of the law, in an attempt to fulfill the spirit of the law and account for changing times. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which is what you're talking about when you talk about the FCC's censorship regulations, was only recently passed, and that amidst certain worries to precisely this effect. Should a case regarding this case be brought before the United State Supreme Court and it be determined unconstitutional there, this law will be struck down, but that requires the case to exist and follow through the standard judicial appeals process right on up to the top. Media attempts to manage this have met with only limited success, in large part due to a very conservative Supreme Court that is perfectly fine with loose constructionism when it suits them. For instance, take a look in the specific voting in FCC v. Fox (5-4 against), which overturned an appellate decision in favor of Fox; all of the conservative, self-described "strict constructionists" vote in favor of restriction of speech, while all of the liberals vote against. We love you too, Scalia. Well, to their benefit, Thomas at least said he was perfectly willing to overturn the original cases that let the FCC continue censorship and that he only voted with the others on grounds of procedure, while the Court as a whole has accepted the case again for review after the Second Appeals Court reaffirmed their original stance.
As for regulation of school behavior, this is where common law really comes into play. Tinker v. Des Moines ICSD established that First Amendment rights exist in school, except in circumstances where it is prejudicial to schoolwork, discipline, or the rights of others. Hate speech falls under the latter two categories, and hence can be taken as grounds for punishment under school regulations. Bethel School District v. Fraser added that schools have a responsibility to establish shared and civilized patterns of behavior by setting a good example, essentially, which allows schools to curtail offensive, obscene, or vulgar behavior. In essence, because a school has very specific and mandated responsibilities, and because of the unique status of students as legal minors still developing both mentally and physically, school authorities have greater leeway in restricting offensive speech in order to maintain a reasonable educational and societal setting and avoid impairing the progress of learning and educational and social development.