- Whereas, the 1988 Supreme Court Ruling in Hazelwood V
- Kuhlmeier allowing school administration the right of
- prior review over school newspapers represents gross
- violation of 1st amendment rights and,
- Whereas, every individual (as well as the press) has the
- right to express themselves freely via the rights given
- them under the Constitution of the United States, including students and
- Whereas, teaching students the merits of free speech
- rights and then unjustly denying them is contradictory
11 setting a bad example for future generations of Americans
that strikes at the heart of the conepts this country was - built on.
- Therefore, be it resolved here that school administration should not have the right of prior review
over student media. The first amendment rights of a student
to express him/herself freely as an individual exists
and should be confirmed. Students should be protected as
individuals under the Constitution.
So high school students should be able to use my tax money to say whatever they want to? Can I come over to your house and paint slogans on the walls? If not, aren’t you censoring me?
Pepper,
Are you writing bills for some class project or something? Or are you just figuring out new ways to introduce a topic?
**
It is not a violation of 1st Amendment rights according to the Supreme Court.
**
Sure they can express themselves. But the school is not obligated to provide them a forum to express their views. Just like any editor or publisher is free to restrict what they choose to print.
**
It isn’t unjust. If they really want to express themselves there are other places to do that besides school papers.
The Supreme Court already ruled that it was ok for the administration to have prior review over student media. You can’t make a law saying that it isn’t ok. Students are already protected as individuals under the Constitution. The fact that they don’t have free reign at school doesn’t violate their rights.
Marc
Hard to add much to the points that Marc made…but the notion that minors have the same 1st Amendment rights (among other rights/responsibilities) as those past majority is just plain silly.
The courts (and in most cases, the legislative and executive branches also) have ALWAYS treated minors as distinct from adults, especially in a school setting where the school often acts in loco parentis (sp?)
There are a whole host of issues that encompass this principle from access to various forms of media…to curfews…to rights when arrested (usually a parent must be present for questioning)
Want unfettered access to print whatever you want? Start your own independent newspaper and print whatever you damn well please. Any libel charges you lose will then have to be borne entirely by you, not the school (i.e. taxpayers)
I’m not writing anything. THese bills were handed to me and I was told “Write a speech, for both sides of the issue. We are going to a Congress Tourney.” “OK!”
However, I’ve never been very good with these things. So I’m presenting them to the smartest people i know. Don’t worry, this is the last one (For now)
I’m not complaining Pepper. And I’m sorry I gave you that impression. I was simply curious. You’ll have to let them know that that last bill is pretty lame.
Marc
Not being an American :eek: I don’t have a constitutional perspective on this, but ignoring the legal side of affairs, for a school to encourage students to raise their voices, ferret out facts, write on subjects of importance to them, and get published - and then decide that only certain points of view are to be represented - sets an alarming standard for the students they are meant to be educating.
No question that the school is within its legal rights to do this. However, it is possible to make terrible pedagogical and ethical decisions and remain within your legal rights.
Off Edupage:
Yeah, this reminds me of when I was in HS. I edited the school paper and we did a series of articles introducing the teachers who were new that year. One of them, “Miss Smith”, mentioned that she had a daughter. We printed it. I got called on the carpet by the principal for allowing it to be printed that we had an “unwed mother” on the staff. What the hell? If that’s such a bad thing, they shouldn’t have hired her. You’d think I’d printed that we had a drug-dealer on staff! Geez. As for the legality of it, I suppose they had the right…
I’m not sure that having prior review/restraint automatically means that the administration is doing so to only represent certain views…they could be doing so to avoid a libel suit that the district (taxpayers) would have to pay for.
However, beagledave, in my experience, administrators don’t use prior restraint as a tool to avoid libel. They use it predominantly to stifle views with which they disagree or to restrict discussion of issues they feel are not “appropriate.”
Which is bad, because? A school paper is not the same as the New York times nor should they be treated the same. It is entirely appropriate for the administration to monitor the content of the paper.
Marc
We’ve debated this point before so I’ll simply do a quick reiteration for Pep’s benefit:
I was a high school journalist, a college journalist and a professional journalist, so I do have some background here.
The “publisher” is responsible for anything and everything. In the case of the school newspaper, it’s the school administration, acting as the agent of the school board.
Any student journalist who thinks he/she will have complete freedom to write or say anything they want, will not last long as a professional journalist. Even star columnists, who traditionally have had the most freedom of anyone on a newspaper, have to submit their columns for approval.
Deal with it.
FYI, it was here.