Did To! Did Not!

"Why the Statesman's publication was delayed The Chicago Tribune on Thursday, November 19 posted an article implying that Stevenson High School delayed publication of its student newspaper over concerns that it contained articles harmful to the school’s reputation. The charge is false. Students in the past have run articles related to smoking and drinking, teen sexual activity, and crime, and they will in the future. The Statesman’s publication, originally scheduled" (d125.org)

"Administrators at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire spiked Friday's edition of the school's award-winning newspaper because of concerns about stories on drinking and smoking by honor students, teen pregnancy, and shoplifting, the editor said." (Chicago Tribune).

The first quote was taken directly from the Stevenson High School website. This was released as a statement from the administrators. The second quote was the first paragraph of the Chicago Tribune article in Friday's morning paper.
I write about this because if you look at this issue with an unbiased perspective, there is certainly a civil liberties issue underlying. SHS is claiming that they postponed the release of this weeks edition because the paper itself was not fit to be released and not because of inappropriate content. They argued that topics such as underage drinking, smoking, and sex have been prevalent in the past, and will continue to be present in future publications of SHS's "The Statesman".
On the other hand, the article from the trib says that the school chose to put its foot down finally, barring these inappropriate topics from the paper. The article sees it as a violation of the student's freedom of press and speech.
Initially, the rebel inside of me sided with the tribune, believing that our schools are always trying to subdue everyone and protect its image at all times. But I tried to be a cynic for once, and discovered a very logical way of explaining these events.
The paper has been publishing these stories for years according to the statement from SHS. I consider then that someone at the tribune was opposed to the publications of such taboo topics, and maybe tried publishing this article in order to stop SHS from printing these stories.

I was wondering if anyone could think of any other reason why these events took place? Who was right or wrong in the situation. Should the media have the right to make potentially harmful accusations such as these?