censorhsip student publications, public school law, dr. w.a. kritsonis

8/14/2019 Censorhsip Student Publications, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/censorhsip-student-publications-public-school-law-dr-wa-kritsonis 1/18

You can’t tell me what to write!

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Censorship of StudentPublication



The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the united StateConstitution is part of the united State Bill of Rightsthat expressly prohibits the United Sates Congressform making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion,laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe thefreedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably

assemble, or limit the right to petition the governmentfor a redress of grievances.



In the First Amendment the

founding Fathers gave the free pressthe protection it must have to fulfill itsessential role in our democracy. The

press was to serve the governed, notthe governors. The government’spower to sensor the press was

abolished so that the press wouldremain forever free to censure theGovernment.



Freedom of the press in the public

schools, however, is governed by adifferent set of constitutionalprecedents. Regulations of the

students newspapers is subject to theSupreme Court decision inHazelwood School District v.

Kuhlmeier



Four Categories of LitigationsConcerning Publications

1. School-sponsored newspapers

2. Nonschool, or underground,newspapers written anddistributed by students

3. Materials distributed by studentsat school but written andpublished by nonstudents

4. Internet



School Sponsored

u Hazelwood decision permitted the schoolto control or censor a school-

sponsored paper. Nonschoolpublications may be regulated only bytime, place, and manner of distribution; they cannot be regulatedas to content. These restrictions arecontingent upon the school havingcreated a limited public forum asopposed to a nonpublic or closedforum.

u In Hazelwood – the court said that theschool paper (theatrical productions,and other expression perceived to“bear the imprimatur”) was not apublic forum.



Underground Publication

u If a school permits non-schoolmaterials to be distributed then a

limited public forum has beencreated. When this happens therestriction has to be content-neutral.

u Canx Place a restriction on time,

place, and manner

restrictions on access toschool groundsu Can’t

x Control the content as ispermitted with school-sponsored publications.



Underground PublicationContinued

u Burch v. Barker

x Student-written our-page newspaper entitled

Bad Astra. This was critical of the schoolsadministration and did not contain vulgarity,obscenity, or defamatory statements.

x The school was not able to review it’s contentbefore distribution; it was not school related

and Hazelwood did not apply.



Religious Publications

u Distributing religious newsletters written bynonstudents.

u One court said it was ok, but the other courts

decision have not been uniformed.u Under Hazelwood

x If School Officials have open to the schoolto “indiscriminate use,” then the schoolbecomes a public forum an a “limited

public forum can be created.” If this isthe situation distributing religiousinformation is constitutional.

xDon’t get caught in the situation / Donot open the school to groups.



School officials may exercise editorial controlover school-sponsored publications if theyhave a legitimate pedagogical reason. For nonschool publications if the school hascreated a “limited public forum,” then the

school can only control the time, place, andmanner of distribution, but not the content. If a school policy required that students submitmaterials before distribution, then strong due

process procedures must be in place, or thepolicy is vulnerable to prior restraintchallenge.



aze woo c oo s r c v.Kuhlmeier

(School Editorials)u Spring of ’83, Journalism teacher submit page proofs

of each Spectrum issue to the Principalu May 13 principal object to two of the articles:

x Students’ experiences with pregnancy (three

students)x Impact of divorce on students at the schoolu Principals Concerns

x Different names were used, but he felt youcould still figure out who the students were

x Articles references to birth control and sexualactivity were inappropriate for some younger students

x Student identified by name regarding a divorce – parents were not given the opportunity torespond or to consent

x



aze woo c oo s r c v.Kuhlmeier

(School Editorials)Continued

u Principal concluded to publish a four pager instead of the six eliminating the

divorce and pregnancy pages or to notpublish a paper at all. He directed theteacher to withhold the two mentionedpublications.

u Court’s decision: Sided with theAdministrator.



Internet and Free Speech

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV

School District Beussink claims that the

Woodland School Districtsuspended hem from school for ten days because he had posted

a homepage on the Internetwhich was critical of WoodlandHigh School. The homepage'scriticism of the high schoolincluded crude and vulgar language.



Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School

District

u Court Decision:

x First Amendment right was violated. – “clean up”homepage

x Student faced academic harmu He failed 4 classes because of this and

lack of credit will delay his graduation atthe end of the school year.

x Student’s homepage did not materially andsubstantially interfere with school discipline.

x The harm to the student is greater than that tothe district if the injunction is not granted.

x District is enjoined from:u Using the 10 day suspension in its

application of its absenteeism policy,

u Enforcing any other sanction arising fromBeussink’s homepage which is thesubject of this lawsuit,

u From restricting Beussink’s use of hishome computer to repost thathomepage

x The injunctive relief was GRANTED.



Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School

District

u Showed a friend at home and she was upset aboutit

u

She told a teacher the next day, but Beussinkhadnot given her the address; teacher pulled up hishomepage and told the administration. Theprincipal viewed it

u Student was disciplined because the principal wasupset that it had been view at school {he did notknow other students have viewed the page bythe end of the day as well}

u Student suspended for 5 days then a second notice

was send that he would be suspended for anadditional 5 days.u School has absenteeism policy that drops students’

grades in each class by one letter grade for each unexcused absence in excess of ten days.Student had 8.5 but the additional 10 made it18.5 days.

u



Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)

Wide-Awake Productions was deniedfunding for its newspaper, WideAwake: A Christian Perspective atthe University of Virginia, becauseit “primarily promotes a particular belief in or about a deity or anultimate reality”

The University unlike most used its

Student Activities Fund to pay the printing cost not the university’sfunds.



Rosenberger v. University of

Virginia (1995)(School Editorials)

Decision of the Court:

Ruled as unconstitutional studentorganization funding systems in whichsome student organization expression

(e.g., publications, speakers, posters) waspaid for by the university, but that bystudent religious organization was not.



Other Cases to Note

u Widmar v. Vincet (1981)

u Lemon v. Kurtzman (1981)

u

Abood v. Detroit Board of Educationu Board of Education of the Westside

Community Schools v. Mergens(1990)

u Kincaid v. Gibson (1997)

u Lamb’s Chapel v. Center MorichesUnion Free School District (1993)

u

u

censorhsip student publications, public school law, dr. w.a. kritsonis

Documents