I am an avid fan of CourtTV, and this morning, they are covering a case that has a lot of good potential for the so-called limitations of free speech. Here is the story

Apparently, this student was suspended from school for trying to start an anarchy club:

When 15-year-old Katie Sierra wore T-shirts bearing this version of the American pledge as well as other sayings that showed her opposition to the war in Afghanistan, teachers and students at her West Virginia High School were outraged.

Some students of Sissonville High School allegedly threatened to give Katie a taste of "West Virginia justice."
Does this mean she is pushing "anti-government" views and therefore possible terrorist like views, or is she simply "mad" at the system? She claims her school (and town in general) is:

says she heard that the West Virginia High School wasn't as liberal as other schools she was used to, and characterizes the students as bigots.
And the schools argument is:

The school's principal, Forrest Mann, suspended Katie for three days and forbid her to wear the controversial shirts, saying that her behavior was "disrupting school activity." Mann says his job is to guarantee students a safe school and good education — which became impossible in the volatile environment resulting from the controversy. Mann also denied Katie's request to start an anarchy club.
Which is right? That is a tough question indeed especially after the 9/11 attacks and the general fear of anti-american views. I have no idea if this will be a landmark case, but it might reexamine the importance of free speech, and how this right distinguishes our country from many others.