The defendants' restrictions must also be narrowly tailored to advance the government's significant interest.
Grayned, 408 U.S. at 115, 92 S.Ct. 2294. PeTA argues that the government's interest in an education only justifies restrictions on speech when classes are in session and only for material disruptions. In
Grayned, the Court only addressed disruptions to classes “in session,”
and the Court found a compelling interest in an “undisrupted
school session conducive to the students' learning.”
408 U.S. at 119, 92 S.Ct. 2294. The Court stated, “[n]oisy demonstrations that disrupt or are incompatible with
normal school activities .... may be constitutionally protected at other places or other times ... but next to a school,
while classes are in session, [they] may be prohibited.”
Id. at 120, 92 S.Ct. 2294 (emphasis added). Similarly, in
Rothner, the Seventh Circuit upheld an ordinance prohibiting minors from playing video games before 3 p.m. because it was limited to school hours.
929 F.2d at 303. The court stressed that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to school-age students and school hours, and “prohibits the students' contacts with the video games only insofar as such conduct ‘disrupts ... normal school activities.’ ”
Id. at 304 (quoting
Grayned, 408 U.S. at 119, 92 S.Ct. 2294). While
Grayned did not explicitly find a significant governmental interest after school hours and did not define “normal school activities,” we find that disruptions immediately after school can affect the school's learning environment and that leaving school can properly be considered a “normal school activity” for a junior high school.