I, Nicole, support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida. The thing that influenced my opinion and interpretation of this case the most is the fact that students couldn’t be trusted with keeping the identities of the interviewees secret in the article. The article talked about teen pregnancy and the parents’ criticism. And I think everyone knows these topics in particular are very controversial and distracting to students in school. When the principle read the article and saw that the identities were not well hidden he knew he would have to take the pages out because the students wouldn’t have enough time to redo the article, given the deadline. I think the principle made a responsible decision for the good of the school and the students’ rights.I favored the stricter interpretation of the laws and rights in this case because I didn’t think the students’ rights were violated by taking out the newspaper. Another part of the majority opinion states that the principle acted responsibly. I do agree with that because if he didn’t take the pages out then the school could’ve been facing charges for not concealing the identities.The first amendment is what influenced me the most in this case because I see the first amendment as one of the most important amendments to go by. I also think the first amendment is what the case was really focusing on because a lot of people thought it was violated but I don’t think it was.I, Nicole, write this opinion to support the majority opinion in the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier because I viewed the ordinance deal in this case as unconstitutional. I think the city does what to make laws to ensure the public’s health and safety but I don’t think the law was narrow enough in Pinellas Park. I don’t think it targeted the activities that actually contributes to the crime in the city. I think they were actually doing the opposite. In the minority opinion people thought the curfew was constitutional because they thought it was equitable and they pointed out that the majority opinion was interpreting the law too strictly. The minority judge also thought that minors could not be out late in assembly without an adult.I favored the stricter interpretation of the laws and rights in this case because I think the first amendment applies to everyone regardless of their age. I also didn’t think the ordinance was in the publics best interest because they didn’t actually have any proof that this reduced crime. I think the ordinance was restricting parents from raising their kids the way they want to without government restriction.The first amendment again was the main factor that influenced me in this case because I think the ordinance went against their right to assembly. I think minors should be able to assembly in public places whenever they want, as it is their right to do so. I think this is unconstitutionalbecause the minor could have just been going somewhere and got treated like a criminal even though he wasn’t committing any crime.