Based on faculty politics and the school newsletter (as distinguished from the school newspaper), I couldn’t tell. 
My thoughts exactly!
As a former employee of McDonalds Corporation, I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with you.
Chandaleur, let’s clarify a few points.
We were not, I think, speaking of First Amendment rights. Congress has yet to attempt to censor a school newspaper, so far as I know (though I wouldn’t give very high odds some avid SD member/researcher will not give me a cite disproving that point) – and the century is young yet. Give them time.
However, the Fourteenth Amendment has been, since its passage in some cases, and since 1937 in virtually all cases, extended the rights and privileges guaranteed citizens as against the federal government by the first eight amendments to them as against the states.
What difference does that make? you ask. Quite simply, legally everything governmental in this country is a creation of the states, who have the sovereign right to create it, add or subtract to it or its powers, or abolish it. The legislature of the State of New York could, if it so chose, separate out Manhattan (the borough, not the moderator) and attach it to the City of Buffalo, leaving New York City composed of the other four boroughs. Or make it part of Hamilton County in the Adirondacks. Or Texas could create a Commission on Chili Standards with the power to require that every portion or container of chili offered for sale to the public within the sovereign State of Texas meets the high standards expected of Texas chili. Or make pi legally equal to three. Or any other fool thing they care to do.
School districts, and city and county governments running schools where there are not separate districts, are the creation of the states. And are subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. And are required to honor the rights guaranteed therein, subject to such nuances as the courts see fit to determine. (That “bounding” thing again.) A city may require a permit to hold a public meeting on any issue, but they may not legally pick and choose what issues get permits. If the Citizens Coalition for Moral Values can have a rally, so can the Radical Faeries Coalition for Public Nudity, and on precisely the same terms.
Poly
Are you saying that I may not breach my agreement with you? If so, we’re on the same page. Mine just has fewer words, I guess.
Yes, and Yes, we are. But that exercise in long-windedness was necessary for me, because the point that one does not surrender a right by agreeing not to exercise it is, I believe, and important one to stress.
And the thing you were looking for in your exchange with Mangeorge is the term “quiet enjoyment” – which is legalese for “If you pay the rent and hold to the lease terms, and don’t trash the property in ways I neglected to specify in the lease but which any reasonable man would agree is wastage of my property, it’s yours to use as you like for the duration of the lease.”
I like that term, quiet enjoyment! It fits in well conceptually with a peaceful honest person’s pursuit of his own happiness.
Lib,
If rights are an attribute of property, I’m curious to know how you would respond to the following hypothetical?
Let’s suppose you’re the owner and captain of a ship. I take passage on the ship, and sign the contract that says I will comply with all of your rules of conduct on that ship.
Now, one of your rules is that all passengers will attend Christian church services that you conduct every morning. You have firm Christian beliefs, and insist that all your passengers participate in the worship.
Due to my own negligence, I didn’t notice that rule in the contract - it was there, but I signed in a hurry.
First day at sea, you summon everyone for the service. I politely tell you that I’m not a Christian, that it’s contrary to my religious beliefs to attend a Christian service, and I decline to participate.
Do your property rights, and the contract I signed, compel me to attend the service? I can’t get off the ship because we’re at sea.
I can tell you what my response would be: property rights and contractual rights are extremely important, but my right to freedom of conscience would trump your property and contract rights in this situation. You can’t force me to worship a god that I do not believe in. Some rights truly are inalienable, and not even the contract I signed can be used to infringe on my freedom of conscience.
(Of course, once we’re in harbour, you could sue me for the aggravation I may have caused to you, by not complying with the terms of the contract.)
Curious to hear your thoughts. This is an interesting thread.
JTI
Good question, conjoining two ethic sets.
On the one hand, breach is a coercion (it is a type of fraud where you have misrepresented your willing compliance). On the other hand, as a Christian, I would just voluntarily let it go. I would have a right, but no compulsion, to prosecute you.
Simple reply: No.
Reason: They are students in an atmosphere where authority is required for learning. They can learn all about the ‘yellow’ press later on in life. Most of the time, kids under 28 get all fired up over causes that they wonder why they even bothered with by 24 and fail to consider the long term ramifications of their actions.
Besides, I would consider razzing teachers in the school paper as undermining their authority. They don’t need that. Nor do they need to pick on other students. Those kid movies and cartoons on TV showing the members of the school paper heroically defending the rights of their school paper to harass someone is bunk. Them not getting into trouble over it is bunk also.
Okay, Lib, you’re a good Christian and you respect my religious beliefs, consistent with Romans, ch. 14. But suppose the owner/captain is someone else, who’s not such a good Christian, and that owner/captain doesn’t want to respect my beliefs - do the contractual and property rights give him the right to compel me to worship, here and now, rather than waiting until shore to sue me?
Are property and contractual rights truly the source of all liberties, or does the individual conscience give a greater right?
Polycarp, one thing that should be noted is that students do not have the same constitutional rights as adults. Specifically, high school students can and do have personal property (i.e., bookbags and cars) searched by school officials and/or police without a search warrant. Probable cause is all that is needed, according to the Supreme Court. In practice, this has often turned into the justification for bookbag and locker searches. It also has brought about instances where someone says that Johnny Jones is carrying drugs, and the police are brought in and go through Johnny’s things to the point that his bookbag is taken apart. (Happened to one of my friends- someone spread the rumor about him out of pure malice, and the school had no choice but to check.) So yes, student’s rights are limited.
I have worked for two different papers in my life; one as a columnist, one as a reporter. I avoided my high school paper because of sheer disgust. I won an award for a poem that I wrote, and the paper wanted to publish it- but not before editing the line “delicate interplay of tongue, sweet sensation.” I said no, because I thought it absurd. Interestingly enough, they did run the announcement that the school gay/straight alliance was forming, even though they got reamed 6 ways to Sunday for doing so. In another instance, some cartoonists included very tiny writing in their works. Messages like “drink beer” and “kinky sex rocks.” Caused quite a scandal, as I recall. Anyway.
I don’t believe in blanket censorship, but there is the matter that the school paper is the school’s voice, not the writer’s. If something offensive is put in the school paper, then the student will be accountible for it only to a limited degree- the administration will be blamed for allowing it far more. As the paper is a publication representing the school, the administration should, unfortunately, have a say in what is or is not in the paper. (Of course, this means that most school papers are as good reading as the average junk catalog.)
Two days until college…
andygirl
"Two days until college… "
You’re supposed to say university, andygirl. 
Work hard, good luck!
Peace,
mangeorge
Thank you, Polycarp.
minors do not have all the same rights I have!
People under 18 do not have the right to vote
They do not have the right to keep and bear arms
They do not have the right to posses adult magazines
The last one is another First Amendment issue. I can freely and legally posses playboy magazine, a minor can not, and in this state will be fined for having it. By status (their age) minors do not have all of the same rights as adults.
JTI
Good changes in your hypothetical.
He has the right to hold you to the contract you signed. Perhaps a man ought to more carefully consider that to which he affixes his name and honor.
Suppose you and I enter into a contract wherein you provide me room and board to design for you a website. Suppose I then come back to you and say, “I’ve changed my mind. In good conscience I cannot design this site for you. You see, I signed the contract hurriedly, and did not notice it was an atheism site. But I’m going to stay here just the same for the entire thirty days we agreed to. What time is supper tonight?”
Your thoughts?
Poly:
OK, I think I see your point:
Section 1, Amendment 14
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If I understand your post, you are stating that the school, because it is a public one, with money coming from the state, is an entity of government, to which the constitution applies. If so, then I see your point. (hey, I’m no Constitution scholar, but I’m always learning) I guess if this were a private school, the whole thing would be moot. One thing that struck me, reading the 14th, is the “without due process of law” part. It seems that the issue of censorship came up, someone called bullshit, and it was given its due process. They sided with the school.
Now, in debating as to whether or not this is right, I suppose we should at least try to find out why they ruled this way. Perhaps that because it is a Public school, as parents we don’t have to send them there, as probably is the case in other nations. We have the freedom to send our kids to any school we choose. Just a wild thought off the top of my head. Anyway, I’d be really interested in knowing why the rulings, not just what the rulings were. I think the debate lies in the findings of the court, and not the headlines in a paper.
But I do see your point.
©
friend crazy boob,
a very interesting topic! as a parochial school child(class of '71), these questions were handled quite differently. there were a great number of decisions made for me, in a very authoritarion manner, which brings me to my question:
friend wring asks:
the question of “moral right” is often a topic today. when does moral right supercede legal rights? who is the arbiter of “moral right?” am i the only one frightened by the thought of someone over ruling my constitutional rights by applying some subjective moral opinion?
I ran an underground paper–The Westdale Middle Finger–two years ago to protest against censorship of the other school newspaper, the Verve. But the censorship was extreme–many of the submissions were disapproved, and the remaining articles were mostly school spirit type chirpiness. The paper wasn’t well received, and many of the writers were pissed off at having their work rejected, so they only managed to publish one issue.
Around this time, I started distributing The Finger. It was a satirical piece written in the spirit of The Onion, but many of the topics were relevant to the school. I included disclaimers about the Finger being fictional, and I made it clear I wasn’t affiliated with the school.
In the second issue, I included my locker number for comments and submissions. I knew I was going to get `caught,’ but I did it so I could have a chat with the administration about the other school newspaper.
A week later, I was called down to the office.
The vice principal started by praising my writing. Then she basically told me I wasn’t allowed to go around giving people the Finger. Her argument was that since the law requires kids to attend school until they’re 16, the school is responsible for everything they read. If it were a university, she said, an underground newspaper would be allowed. She was careful to avoid blaming the Finger directly, and said that if someone were to distribute a religious pamphlet or something on the school grounds, they would be subjected to the same rules. She also mentioned something about defamation of character, since my articles included the principal, but I wasn’t sure if principals were considered public figures and therefore fair game for satire.
About the other school paper: the vice principal invited the two editors to our meeting. She was firm about the rules, and the meeting ended up being much less productive than I expected. Neither newspaper published an issue after that.
By the way, this was a Canadian school, so the legal precendents mentioned before don’t apply. I haven’t been able to find any Canadian cases either allowing or disallowing censorship in school newspapers, underground or otherwise.
Oh yeah, and e-mail me if anyone wants copies of the Finger as PDFs 
Since minor children are not in school of their own choosing, they have no moral obligaton to give a damn who owns the building. The Man may not recognize the child’s right to publish without censorship, so sometimes you just have to count on the Man not recognizing the child’s publication when he sees it. Power on! Children of the corn! Don’t trust anyone over the age of 17! Rock the cradle bars!
Thanks, all.
FarTreker, all I can say is, you’re wrong. Not that the points you’re making are invalid in themselves, but they are founded on a false principle. “Respect for authority” in and of itself is unAmerican. Respect for that body of laws and persons in positions of public service which you have participated in placing in positions of authority is, definitely, appropriate. Do you catch my distinction? Because Joe Schmoe is Mayor, or Principal of a school one attends, does not give him the right to respect for his authority. But as a decent citizen, I have consented to the public structure under which Joe Schmoe was elected Mayor, and he deserves my respect insofar as he is doing the job he was elected to do, neither failing to carry out the duties of his office nor aggrandizing himself beyond his legal powers. On student respect for school authorities, see below.
Andy, Alan, and PK: For reasons that seem good to adults [ ], persons under an age of majority are under the governance of others, in a custodial relationship aimed at enabling them to come to adulthood with sufficient skills, sense of rights and responsibilities, moral code, and so on, that they can function as a part of society. Nobody under 18 has ever been totally accepting of this system, but it seems to work very well. And you must agree that some such system is needed. My friend Brandon is a very wise and thoughtful person. But at age 5, he does not have the experience of the world he needs to make adult decisions yet. When my wife and I take him somewhere, I respect his desires to the extent possible, but I am quick to tell him what to do when the circumstances call for it. With the difference in age and experience taken into account, the same is true for a 16-year-old. At some point, usually 18, the custodial relationship is removed, but has been such for the few years previous that its absence is nearly negligible; the new adult will hopefully function to make mature decisions, by right, with the advice of older people when he/she sees fit to ask for it, in much the same way as he/she was permitted to do at 17 years, 9 months.
I do not defend this on overall philosophical terms, just on the practical grounds that that has been a functional way to turn small children into free, responsible adult citizens for many years.
But it needs to be brought home very clearly that while authority figures in the lives of minors may restrict their rights, they do not abolish those rights. There is, interestingly, an additional set of rights which minors have according to the courts, to be adequately provided for physically and psychologically by the persons in those custodial relationships. And, as noted, because a public school needs a certain decorum and discipline to operate does not deprive students of their rights.
Andy, one point: on the search item, you confuse a general freedom and a specific circumstance. Recently I had to enter a county courthouse. And there were very clear signs indicating that I could not bear a firearm onto the premises, under penalty of being guilty of a felony, and that I was subject to search if suspected of bearing a concealed weapon. This was not a violation of my constitutional rights, but merely an advisement that admission to the structure was contingent on my waiving my second and fourth amendment rights for the quite reasonable purpose of ensuring that the judge, D.A., jury, and other public figures are not assaulted with deadly weapons. Now, granted that there are laws compelling attendance at schools in most jurisdictions, you may feel that the parallel is not precise – your waiving your rights for the purpose of getting an education at the school is not on all fours with my voluntary waiving of mine, since you are compelled to attend school. However, you are not compelled to attend that school. That particular one is held open to residents between the ages of 5 and 18 free of charge through the use of tax revenues to support it. But, with consent of parent or other custodial person, you could attend any other school on payment of appropriate fees, or be home-schooled (and meet the state requirements for doing so).
Now, a private school is under no obligation to keep to the constitutional provisions regarding state institutions. It may require school prayer, uniforms, mandatory rhythmic breathing, an oath to “remain pure until marriage,” or whatever floats its operators’ boat and is acceptable to the people paying tuition that their kids may attend it.
Chandaleur, you have it on target – my sole additional point is that not just the funding but the actual public school as an entity operated by a Board of Education is a creation of the state. It differs in no real legal manner from the Bureau of Chili Regulation which that hypothetical Texas commission of my earlier post supervises. The state by statute caused a school district to be established and an elective board to be chosen to run it. And as a creature of the state it is governed by the same constitutional precepts as is the state.
** I LOVE THE INTERNET!!!**
I read this thread then spent about 4 minutes searching the web. I am not a law student - but I was a student journalist in High School and once wrote an essay on this issue. I sort-of remembered the name of the Supreme Court case that handled this issue and jumped over http://www.ask.com. Less that 5 minutes later, I found (formatting mine):
Please note the sections I bolded; I think they are most germane to this debate.
In short, the Court found that the Principal was acting on behalf of the school’s pedagogical concerns and did not violate student rights.
(Yes, I know that the decision was reversed, but I can’t find out why or what the details of the reversing decision were. Let someone with more experience in Legal research find it.)
My source is [!28[group+syllabus!3A]!7C[level+case+citation!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?"]here](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+484+u!2Es!2E+260!3A).