Student rights / School Newspaper Rights

1st Amendment Free speech Freedom of the press Do we ever give up those rights? When? How are schools different?

In school or related activities When students walk in the door of a school or are participating in a school-sanctioned activity, their first amendment rights become somewhat restricted. Several court cases have led to these decisions.

Tinker vs. Des Moines Ind Tinker vs. Des Moines Ind. SD The main court decision cited for student rights issues John and Mary Beth Tinker and Chris Eckhardt wore black armbands with peace symbols to school to protest Vietnam in 1965 School board banned the armbands and violating students were to be suspended

The Tinkers and Eckhardt were suspended, along with two other students The parents protested the decision and it went all the way to the Supreme Court by 1969

Decision In a 7-2 Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tinker Neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression or speech at the schoolhouse gate.” - Justice Abe Fortas School’s right to ensure a productive learning environment

Tinker Standard Students have right to engage in free speech activities at school as long as speech 1) does not invade the rights of others 2) does not create a “material and substantial” disruption of normal school activities

Bethel SD vs. Matthew Fraser U.S. Supreme Court distinguishes between political speech as in Tinker and speech that is part of the school program Court re-examines issue of student expression in schools and finds certain limits on expression are permitted by First Amendment

Matthew Fraser, a student in Bethel High School, delivered a campaign speech during an assembly that was full of sexual metaphors. He was suspended for two days and prohibited from giving a graduation speech. The District Court ruled the school's disciplinary actions violated Fraser’s First Amendment rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

Does the First Amendment “prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.”

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Fraser’s conduct was not appropriate and administrators had right and duty to punish him. Said Tinker applied to expression of political speech. But Fraser’s speech was not political speech and was conduct which cannot be allowed in a high school. Court stated it balanced Fraser’s Constitutional rights and society’s interest in teaching students socially acceptable behavior.

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier 1988 Explores the issue of free press for a school newspaper Role of paper – watchdog, quick information, entertain, reach the masses

What First Amendment protection do high school students have when working on school-sponsored publications? Case significantly reduced level of First Amendment protection provided to most school-sponsored student media at public high schools

School paper, The Spectrum, planned on publishing articles concerning teen pregnancy and divorce Principal reviewed and censored the spread with those articles claiming the topics were inappropriate (not necessarily offensive or disruptive language)

Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of school Court Decided: Tinker’s armband = Non-school-sponsored speech (independent student expression) Hazelwood East Spectrum = School-sponsored speech (Curricular, school-funded, with faculty adviser)

School officials serve as publisher (but it ignored the implied fiscal and legal liability that publisher generally has) 2) censor expression that does not properly reflect the school's educational mission; grounds for censorship include stories school officials believe are not fair, expression of sensitive topic, expression ungrammatical and poorly written, inadequately researched or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences

3) review student expression in advance of publication (prior review) or remove questionable material (prior restraint) Hazelwood’s Limitations -even under Hazelwood school officials must demonstrate they have a reasonable educational justification for their censorship. They cannot censor something for no reason or because they disagree with the viewpoint it expresses.

Katy Dean v. Utica Community Schools (2006) Case leaves no doubt that high school student journalists retain significant First Amendment protection that school officials ignore at their peril. But, not a Supreme Court ruling . . .

In researching story, Dean and staff contacted district and township officials, who — as the story noted — refused to comment. She looked at scientific studies, some of which presented conflicting evidence on the carcinogenic effects of exposure to diesel fumes, a fact also noted in her story. Journalists/ journalism educators who later looked at story agreed it was well researched, well-written and journalistically sound.

U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow said the censorship was “Indefensible” The ruling: •Utica H.S. Arrow = Limited Public Forum • Even if not a limited public forum, censorship was “unreasonable” under Hazelwood Judge rules Arrow was a limited public forum where students —not school officials — were responsible for determining content.