Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Student Journalist Press Law: Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Student Journalist

Tinker vs. Des Moines School District February 24, 1969 Students Christopher Eckhardt, John Tinker, and Mary Beth Tinker suspended Protesting Vietnam War by wearing black arm bands Courts upheld students Students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
February 24, 1969

Summary:Students were suspended by school officials for wearing a simple black armband to school to protest Vietnam War. The U.S. Supreme Court held the students' speech was protected. Students, the Court held, do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and school officials may not punish or prohibit student speech unless they can clearly demonstrate that it will result in a material and substantial disruption of normal school activities or invades the rights of others. The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted. On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired--that is, until after New Year's Day. Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier January 13, 1988 Hazelwood East High School principal censored newspaper Articles on teen pregnancy and divorce Paper staff sued school district Established the practice of public forum School can’t censor without reasonable educational justification Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
January 13, 1988

Summary:The principal of Hazelwood East High School outside St. Louis, Mo., censored from the student newspaper a special teen issue section that included articles on teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students that he found objectionable. Members of the student staff sued. The U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that students' First Amendment rights were not violated, 607 F.Supp. 1450. The students appealed. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision, 795 F.2d 1368, primarily relying on the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and held that a high school-sponsored newspaper produced as part of a class and without a "policy or practice" establishing it as a public forum for student expression could be censored where school officials demonstrated a reasonable educational justification and where their censorship was viewpoint neutral. Respondents, former high school students who were staff members of the school's newspaper, filed suit in Federal District Court against petitioners, the school district and school officials, alleging that respondents' First Amendment rights were violated by the deletion from a certain issue of the paper of two pages that included an article describing school students' experiences with pregnancy and another article discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school. The newspaper was written and edited by a journalism class, as part of the school's curriculum. Pursuant to the school's practice, the teacher in charge of the paper submitted page proofs to the school's principal, who objected to the pregnancy story because the pregnant students, although not named, might be identified from the text, and because he believed that the article's references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students. The principal objected to the divorce article because the page proofs he was furnished identified by name (deleted by the teacher from the final version) a student who complained of her father's conduct, and the principal believed that the student's parents should have been given an opportunity to respond to the remarks or to consent to their publication. Believing that there was no time to make necessary changes in the articles if the paper was to be issued before the end of the school year, the principal directed that the pages on which they appeared be withheld from publication even though other, unobjectionable articles were included on such pages. The District Court held that no First Amendment violation had occurred. The Court of Appeals reversed. Held: Respondents' First Amendment rights were not violated. Pp. 266-276. The court ruled in favor of Hazelwood School District, ruling that the school district is the publisher of the paper and has control of educational publications (including newspaper, yearbook, and productions such as plays) First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Pp. 266-267. The school newspaper here cannot be characterized as a forum for public expression. School facilities may be deemed to be public forums [261] only if school authorities have by policy or by practice opened the facilities for indiscriminate use by the general public, or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community. The school officials in this case did not deviate from their policy that the newspaper's production was to be part of the educational curriculum and a regular classroom activity under the journalism teacher's control as to almost every aspect of publication. The officials did not evince any intent to open the paper's pages to indiscriminate use by its student reporters and editors, or by the student body generally. Accordingly, school officials were entitled to regulate the paper's contents in any reasonable manner. Pp. 267-270. The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, distinguished. Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. Pp. 270-273. The school principal acted reasonably in this case in requiring the deletion of the pregnancy article, the divorce article, and the other articles that were to appear on the same pages of the newspaper. Pp. 274-276.795 F. 2d 1368, reversed. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 277. [262]JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the extent to which educators may exercise editorial control over the contents of a high school newspaper produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. I

Effect on Freeman School publications are either based on Hazelwood or Tinker Tinker schools: operate under an open forum policy Hazelwood schools: operate under a closed forum policy Freeman is a closed forum school Prior Review Due to these two opposite court rulings, public secondary schools work under one of two policies: Open Forum or Closed Forum. Open Forum schools uphold student’s right to free speech under most situations like the Tinker findings. In an open-forum school, students run the paper, with the help of an advisor, and are not censored by school administration. As a student-run organization, if there is an issue such as libel, only the student in question can be sued. Closed Forum schools uphold the school districts right to censor student articles under specific situations. School administrators have the right to censor the publication based on a reasonable educational justification. They must show that their censorship was from a neutral viewpoint instead of from a particular viewpoint with which they disagreed or feared would be controversial. Freeman is a closed-forum publication which gives Mr. Smith or Mr. ______ the right to remove an objectionable article. Mr. Smith has the right of prior review of all articles before publishing. He can ultimately pull an article from print. In our paper’s history, Mr. Smith hasn’t raised an objection unless the content was deemed unsuitable for our audience (a district-wide paper), or if the article clearly did not have research to back up the viewpoint (poor reporting). If there is a problem with an article, he and I will work with the writer to try and fix whatever is problematic with the piece. Reasons which are upheld under Hazelwood: Poor grammar, poorly researched, inappropriate for the audience, article includes material which material which will cause substantial disruption of school procedure, contains libel or interferes with right of privacy, or article contains obscenities.

Areas of Unprotected Speech and Action Substantial Disruption of School Procedure School Limits Forum Theory Prior Restraint Who’s responsible? Turn to Case Study worksheet and complete If they can prove a substantial disruption of school procedure, your paper/writer is not protected by the law regardless of open or closed-forum school. The substantial disruption test is a criterion set forth by the United States Supreme Court, in the leading case of: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, [393 U.S. 503 (1969)]. The test is used to determine whether an act by a U.S. public school official (State actor) has abridged a student's constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of free speech. The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?" Forum Theory: You can’t stop something from being written just because you don’t like it. (with-in the legal limits of the law). For example, an article in the Spokesman review about a Nazi rally taking place. This applies to open-forum schools, but not necessarily closed-forum schools. Prior Restraint: Can’t keep someone from writing about a something just because you don’t like the topic. Administration needs to show substantial disruption of school procedure. When an article does cause substantial disruption of school procedure, the paper and the journalist can be held responsible. If the writer was informed by his or her advisor and they chose to publish the article, the author of the article is held responsible. If the writer was not infomed, both the writer and the advisor are held responsible. Do Case Study worksheet

Areas of Unprotected Speech and Action Libel Libel occurs when… Libel vs. Slander Kinds of Libel Pure Libel Malice Guilt by Association Defenses Honest mistake/retraction Truth of statement Fair comment and/or criticism Libel damages Turn to Libel worksheet and complete Libel: defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. Anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents. For libel to occur it must do the following: 1) it must be printed. 2) it must destroy reputation in eyes of peers. 3) It must be read by a 3rd party. Libel test: PIHF- Publication, Identification, Harm, Fault (the article must identify people specifically “John Smith, freshman” Libel is when defamation occurs in written form or in a news broadcast; slander is when defamation occurs in verbal form. Pure libel: a statement causes defamation to the person/persons in question Malice: author sets out to harm/hurt reputation of person Guilt by association: someone is assumed to be part of an organization without actually being part of it. Honest mistake: libel was not intentional, the paper prints a retraction of said libel Truth of statement: you are assumed guilty until you can prove that the statement printed was true Fair comment and/or criticism: you can’t be sued for comments on someone’s performance (play production, athlete’s performance, coach’s coaching). You can do this, but should you? What are the ethics of running a specific story? A third party can sue the paper for as much as they want when libel is committed. A student can only be sued for up to $5000 under state law, but the district can be sued more. Do libelWorksheet

Areas of Unprotected Speech and Action Right of Privacy Publication of Private matters Intrusion False but not defamatory statements Commercial expropriation Fair-Use Law Turn to Right of Privacy worksheet and complete Right of Privacy: people don’t give up their right to privacy just because they are in the public spotlight. Publication of private matters: you can’t publish private matters that have no bearing on a person’s public life. Intrusion: when a reporter is sneaky about getting in formation. There must be a face-to-face conversation informing them that you are working for a paper. Identify yourself. If you don’t have the guts to face someone, you can’t write about it. Also, if someone requests that information in an interview be “off the record,” you cannot use it in your article. False but not defamatory statements: when statements in the article aren’t libelous, but they aren’t true. This can get you sued. Commercial expropriation: you need permission if using something to sell a product. in advertising: you must have written permission from student and parents to use a quote or a picture/image. Fair-use law: you can use an image of a movie, book cover, etc. when writing a review, but all other copy-written images must have permission from the author to be used in a paper. In other words, you can’t just take an image off of Google images/clipart and use it with an article. We get around fair-use law by taking our own pictures for articles. Complete Right of Privacy worksheet.

Areas of Unprotected Speech and Action Obscenity LAPS test Local standards In order to print obscenity in an article it needs to satisfy the LAPS test: LAPS test: Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific Local standards take precedence though. You need to know your audience! In our school paper, we will not print any obscenity regardless of reasoning. The AP rule says to leave out all obscenity and rewrite the quote (don’t substitute). Otherwise, focus goes to the word instead of the quote.

Protecting Student Press Rights Editorial Policy Editorial Board Publication Board Turn to Letter’s to the editor and Censorship worksheets and complete Editorial policy: presents information on what’s an editorial and why, and how a paper handles retractions, advertising, letters to the editor, etc. Should be published in the first issue. Editorial board: made up of all editors. They + the advisor make decision on all controversial issues and opinion pieces, as well as any articles that will be editorial pieces (representing the viewpoint of the paper). Publication board: a board made up of parents, teachers and students who can make decisions on whether or not a controversial article may run. No one related to the staff may serve on the board so that it is totally objective. You will make a presentation to the board (staff, advisor, and /or administrator present sides), then the board gives their recommendation to the principal who makes final decision. Complete Letter’s to the editor and censorship worksheets. Follow up with What’s Your Opinion discussion