NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this censorship or does the school have the right to determine what is printed in the school paper?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176825,00.html

Tennessee H.S. Pulls Copies of Student Paper

Sunday, November 27, 2005

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — Copies of a high school's student newspaper were seized by administrators because the edition contained stories about birth control and tattoos, stirring a First Amendment debate.

Administrators at Oak Ridge High School went into teachers' classrooms, desks and mailboxes to retrieve all 1,800 copies of the newspaper Tuesday, said teacher Wanda Grooms, who advises the staff, and Brittany Thomas, the student editor.

The Oak Leaf's birth control article listed success rates for different methods and said contraceptives were available from doctors and the local health department. Superintendent Tom Bailey said the article needed to be edited so it would be acceptable for the entire school.

The edition also contained a photo of an unidentified student's tattoo, and the student had not told her parents about the tattoo, said Superintendent Tom Bailey.

"I have a problem with the idea of putting something in the paper that makes us a part of hiding something from the parents," he said.

The paper can be reprinted if the changes are made, he said.

"We have a responsibility to the public to do the right thing," he said. "We've got 14-year-olds that read the newspaper."

Thomas said she wasn't sure about making changes. "I'm not completely OK with reprinting the paper," she said.

First Amendment experts were critical of the seizure.

"This is a terrible lesson in civics," University of Tennessee journalism professor Dwight Teeter said. "This is an issue about the administration wanting to have control. Either the students are going to have a voice, or you're going to have a PR rag for the administration."

I believe it's censorship, but the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision pretty much decided that students don't have any rights when it comes to the printed word in school and that administrators have absolute power to restrict school newspapers.

If the school is state funded, it is censorship by officers of the state.

If the school is private, then the owners of property (or those charged by the owners to manage it) have exercised their right not to speak.

that is definantly censership, i think that the students should reprint the storys, just not under the school paper name

If the school is state funded, it is censorship by officers of the state.

If the school is private, then the owners of property (or those charged by the owners to manage it) have exercised their right not to speak.

Interesting way of thinking about it...however, think about this: Strictly speaking, the First Amendment only refers to the U.S. Congress. It doesn't say anything about public school officials. The Supreme Court woudl be left to rule if prior restraint of school newspapers is legal, and in the Hazelwood decision, it did.

I feel that if its a school newspaper, then they should be able to govern it as they see fit. A school detirmines what books and items it will teach from. As well as what reports will be accepted. Its the same here, only its a newspaper. Each article is an assignment, and normally each of the writers has a field in which they are to write under.

Its just like a science teacher rejecting a report because it wasn't covering the correct area, or that it addressed an opinion rather then facts.

On one hand, the school might be held responsable for what is printed in its papers, on the other hand, the students should be able to say what they wish in said paper and if other students object to the material, then the students who printed the paper would have to change what they print in the future to accomodate their wishes...


There's something kinda similar at my school, there's this newletter put out by the engineers that had some rather derogatory jokes about women and minorities. There was a group that formed to get them shut down.

It is Congress that votes the funding, ergo, restrictions that apply to Congress apply to what it funds.

As for the bit on private ownership, the question is who's rights are violated? You see, if I own some means of speech, then it is my right to control it, and forcing me to publish that which I did not want to is a violation of my property rights. It is not a violation of the intended writer's free speech rights for me to refuse, because the means is owned by me.

Depends who pays for the newspaper.

If the school is paying for the paper, ink, etc. Then they have the right to edit it. Its only if they stop the students saying it in their own paper that they pay for that it's censorship.

Is this censorship or does the school have the right to determine what is printed in the school paper?
The answer to both parts of your question is "yes."

It is indeed censorship, but the school has the right to determine what is printed in the school paper since they are acting en loco parentis.

If the school is state funded, it is censorship by officers of the state.
Just who funds the paper though? I know my shcool's paper has some funds from the Board but we're funded mostly by the ads me and my two business coeditors have sold

If the school is private, then the owners of property (or those charged by the owners to manage it) have exercised their right not to speak.
Yea, theoretically the paper could be owned privately if it didn't receive any funding from the school.

It is censorship. Even if the school has the right to determine what's in its paper, that's still censorship. One of my big problems with a school paper is the censorship thing.

Lots of other people have weighed in on the censorship part of the argument, so I'll only add this: the idea behind things like school papers is that they're supposed to give kids real world experience in what I like to call "advanced citizenship." But insofar as the kids have any rights to print what they choose, it's only because the school has given them that right, and what they give, they can take away.

But in reality, what the school is doing is no more egregious than what corporate owners do to our "professional" media every day. Stories get killed because of advertising concerns all the time. Stories get shifted toward one political point of view or another depending on what demographic the company is after. Where profit is the overriding concern for the corporate media, saving face is the concern for the high school administration--this principal doesn't want parents down his throat because his kids ran a story on birth control, so he kills the story.

Lots of other people have weighed in on the censorship part of the argument, so I'll only add this: the idea behind things like school papers is that they're supposed to give kids real world experience in what I like to call "advanced citizenship." But insofar as the kids have any rights to print what they choose, it's only because the school has given them that right, and what they give, they can take away.

But in reality, what the school is doing is no more egregious than what corporate owners do to our "professional" media every day. Stories get killed because of advertising concerns all the time. Stories get shifted toward one political point of view or another depending on what demographic the company is after. Where profit is the overriding concern for the corporate media, saving face is the concern for the high school administration--this principal doesn't want parents down his throat because his kids ran a story on birth control, so he kills the story.
Good exposition there, Nazz! I'm pleasantly surprised! :D

Lots of other people have weighed in on the censorship part of the argument, so I'll only add this: the idea behind things like school papers is that they're supposed to give kids real world experience in what I like to call "advanced citizenship." But insofar as the kids have any rights to print what they choose, it's only because the school has given them that right, and what they give, they can take away.

But in reality, what the school is doing is no more egregious than what corporate owners do to our "professional" media every day. Stories get killed because of advertising concerns all the time. Stories get shifted toward one political point of view or another depending on what demographic the company is after. Where profit is the overriding concern for the corporate media, saving face is the concern for the high school administration--this principal doesn't want parents down his throat because his kids ran a story on birth control, so he kills the story.
And thus teaches the students about the real world. Mission accomplished.

Good exposition there, Nazz! I'm pleasantly surprised! :D
It's what I do for a living. If I were that principal, I'd have pulled the student editors into my office and given them an idea of what was coming when it ran, and then given them an option--either edit it or run it as is. But here's the catch--when the shit hit the fan, they'd be right there next to me taking it, answering the concerns of parents, answering the angry letters to the editors in the city paper, explaining themselves to the school board, etc. That's the big lesson I'd have them learn--actions have consequences.

Censor the little fuckers. It's about time kids learn they have no rights until they're old enough to OD in a club and vote!

"Show your kids you care...beat them!" -Maddox, 2004

The answer to both parts of your question is "yes."


Correct.

My school has done the exact same thing, and the editors got so mad that they were going to hire a lawyer. Nothing ever came of that though.

Then last week somehow the district got the rough draft of the paper and printed it with out the consent of the editors. Now the student editors are trying to sue the district for plaigerism.

yes, it is censorship. but the school has every right to do so. Schools are not required to function by the rights of the constitution (I believe there was a supreme court case...oerhaps Cat Tribe can elaborate on this). But all in all, the school has every right to censor anything that is going to be published by clubs or distributed on school property. The students could, however, publish it on a website and distribute the site name in school without much trouble.

It's censorship and it's legal. The paper is printed by the school and therefore is a reflection of the public school. The administration has the right to decide what's in the paper; just because a student wants something in it printed doesn't mean it gets printed. It's no different than a school board telling a biology teacher he can't teach ID.

Tattoos and birth control are controversial? That is so quaint, in a 50's kind of way.

Is this high school or college?

If it's college, something can be done...because generally, there's a portion of your tuition that's specifically there to go to the journalism department for the student paper, television station, and radio. And there's a student government that's elected by students that votes on things like how much money should be allotted to the journalism department, and they send the result of those votes to the administration as suggestions.

Fine. Someone should foot the bill personally and send out a 1-off privately funded newletter with the censored sections to every student in the school.

Interesting way of thinking about it...however, think about this: Strictly speaking, the First Amendment only refers to the U.S. Congress. It doesn't say anything about public school officials.
The operational constitution of the United States is the written Constitution as interpretted by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the First Amendment applies to all government, not just Congress.

If the school is state funded, it is censorship by officers of the state.

If the school is private, then the owners of property (or those charged by the owners to manage it) have exercised their right not to speak.
The state, too, has the right not to speak. Freedom of speech does not oblige the state to fund and publish what citizens say.