Read this passage from hazelwood school district v. kuhlmeier.

in sum, we cannot reject as unreasonable principal reynolds’ conclusion that neither the pregnancy article nor the divorce article was suitable for publication in spectrum. reynolds could reasonably have concluded that the students who had written and edited these articles had not sufficiently mastered those portions of the journalism ii curriculum that pertained to the treatment of controversial issues and personal attacks, the need to protect the privacy of individuals whose most intimate concerns are to be revealed in the newspaper, and “the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within [a] school community” that includes adolescent subjects and readers. finally, we conclude that the principal’s decision to delete two pages of spectrum, rather than to delete only the offending articles or to require that they be modified, was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them. accordingly, no violation of first amendment rights occurred.

the judgment of the court of appeals for the eighth circuit is therefore

reversed.

how is legal reasoning used to justify the ruling in hazelwood school district v. kuhlmeier?

a. the ruling determined that the school officials were protecting all individuals involved in the publication; thus, they did not violate the defendants’ first amendment rights.
b. the ruling determined that the reasoning used by the defendants in their argument was insufficient; thus, the court removed their argument from the court record.
c. the ruling determined that the reasoning behind the issue of violating first amendment rights was flawed; thus it was not possible for the court to reach a fair consensus.
d. the ruling determined that the issues in question were not of significant legal concern; thus, the court was not required to provide a ruling on a federal level.