The Law of the

Does the student press have the same rights and responsibilities as the professional press? With certain exceptions, yes, student journalists have the same rights and responsibilities as professional journalists. Everyone in America is guaranteed First Amendment protection of expression.

Student journalists have the right to report on and editorialize about all topics, events or issues, including those unpopular or controversial, insofar as they affect or interest the school, community, nation and world.

Student press can not publish anything that is: obscene, according to current legal definitions; libelous, according to current legal definitions; creates a clear and present danger of the immediate and substantial physical disruption of the school; invades privacy, according to current legal standards; and/or advertises illegal products or services, as currently defined by legal definitions Limits of Student Press

Prior Review and Censorship All student press associations agree that prior review, prior restraints and censorship by faculty advisers, school administrators, faculty, school boards or any other individual outside the student editorial board is not in the best interests of scholastic journalism or education.

The Tinker Standard In 1969, the Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. DesMoines, determined that students did not give up their First Amendment rights when they walked into the schoolhouse gate. The Court ruled that students had the right to express themselves freely so long as that expression did not materially and substantially disrupt the school day or infringe upon the rights of others. Although the case dealt with personal expression, it was interpreted to extend to all aspects of the First Amendment, including freedom of the student press.

The “Tinker Standard” maintained that scholastic newspapers were free to publish anything that was not libelous, not obscene and which would not lead to material and substantial disruption of the school day.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials had the right to censor, or prevent the publication of information, in school publications if they had “legitimate pedagogical reasons” for doing so.

The Spectrum’s contents were determined by the adviser; the student staff was chosen by the adviser; all assignments for the paper were made by the adviser. The students had no say in how the paper was set up. In addition, the adviser had made it his practice to submit the paper to the principal for prior review before the publication was sent to the printer.

The Court ruled that the Spectrum was NOT a public forum because the students had not been the ones to determine content, assign stories, and be in control of the general operations of the paper. Since it did not have public forum status, and was a part of the curriculum, the Court ruled that the school administration had the authority to censor its contents—but only in cases in which the officials can show that the censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

The Supreme Court made it clear that this new standard did not automatically apply simply because the newspaper was school-sponsored. It was first necessary to determine if the newspaper had been opened as a designated public forum. If it had, either “by policy or by practice”, been opened as a forum for student expression where student editors had been given control over content, then the Tinker Standard would still be used to determine if censorship were permissible.

Chilling Effect During the years since the Hazelwood decision has been in effect, the number of cases of censorship reported to the Student Press Law Center has risen dramatically. While SPLC helps student journalists with all legal issues surrounding the publication of their newspapers and yearbooks, including libel, invasion of privacy and use of copyrighted materials, about one-third of all calls are related to censorship of content.

The rise in the number of censorship cases has led to what advisers and press law advocates feared would happen: student staffs have begun to censor themselves in anticipation of censorship by school officials. Students are afraid that controversial stories will be cut from the publication, so they are reluctant to spend the time and energy to research sensitive issues, opting instead to write on more light-hearted topics. The fear of being censored has led to self- censorship. This is known as a “chilling effect.”

Policies and Laws Not all schools practice prior review. Some school districts have policies prohibiting prior review and censorship, recognizing the chilling effect of such actions. A number of states have gone even further, establishing laws that protect student journalists from prior review and censorship by school officials, who are recognized as having the same authority as a mayor or a governor, and who should not be involved in the determination of a publication’s content. As one of the primary newsmakers at a school, the principal has a conflict of interest when he/she is allowed to control the content of the publication.