Could you identify the correct points that support the argument about the district don't have the right to censor off-campus speech, please?

3. The Story of Shasta Hatter The Speech Incident: Boycotting the Chocolate Drive Shasta Hatter, a student at Venice High School in California, decided to protest her school's dress code through a boycott of the school's annual chocolate drive - a fundraiser to support student activities (Hat ter v. Los Angeles City High School District, 1971). She chose to rally other students in support of her protest by handing out flyers before school hours outside the schoolhouse gate. Shasta distributed the flyers, which called for a boycott of the drive, at a street corner located across from the school. She used no school resource or time for the speech. Upon learning of the speech, school officials suspended her from the school until the drive was over. The court noted that this suspension threatened to prejudice Shasta's employment and college opportunities. Shasta sued her school district, claiming that school officials violated her First Amendment free speech rights. She sought an injunction and declaratory judgment that she had a constitutional right to distribute the flyers off-campus. Analysis The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit emphasized that, even though students are not adults, they are persons under the United States Constitution within the schoolhouse gate as well as outside the schoolhouse gate (Hatter v. Los Angeles City High School District, 1971). Here the court was simply echoing a similar ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) (discussed in chapter seven of this book). The court declared that