william allan kritsonis kritsonis, phd - censorship of student publication - presentation

8/20/2019 William Allan Kritsonis Kritsonis, PhD - Censorship of Student Publication - Presentation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-allan-kritsonis-kritsonis-phd-censorship-of-student-publication 1/10

Censorship ofCensorship of

Student PublicationsStudent PublicationsPublic School LawPublic School Law

Lecture NotesLecture Notes

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD



Students’ RightsStudents’ RightsTinker v. Des MoinesTinker v. Des Moines

Independent Community SchoolIndependent Community School

District District

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in The U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Tiner !. Des "oines #ndependent Tiner !. Des "oines #ndependentCommunit$ School District %&'(')Communit$ School District %&'(')

was the standard *o+ernin*was the standard *o+ernin*

censorship o student publications orcensorship o student publications oralmost - $ears.almost - $ears.



Tinker V. Des MoinesTinker V. Des Moines

Independent CommunityIndependent CommunitySchool District Con’t.School District Con’t.

#t remains the controllin* decision in#t remains the controllin* decision in

some instances. Tiner established thatsome instances. Tiner established thata student ma$ e/press personala student ma$ e/press personal

opinions, 0e+en on contro+ersialopinions, 0e+en on contro+ersial

sub1ects,2 unless the student3s conductsub1ects,2 unless the student3s conduct

0materiall$ disrupts class wor or0materiall$ disrupts class wor orin+ol+es substantial disorder orin+ol+es substantial disorder or

in+asions o the ri*hts o others2.in+asions o the ri*hts o others2.



Tinker CaseTinker Case

#n+ol+ed se+eral public school students who#n+ol+ed se+eral public school students who

wore armband in school si*ni$in* theirwore armband in school si*ni$in* their

opposition to the war in !ietnam.opposition to the war in !ietnam.

School o4cials learned o this and de+elopedSchool o4cials learned o this and de+elopeda rule that an$ student who wore an armbanda rule that an$ student who wore an armband

to school would be ased to remo+e it .to school would be ased to remo+e it .

# the$ reused to compl$, the$ would be# the$ reused to compl$, the$ would be

suspended until the armband was remo+ed.suspended until the armband was remo+ed. The rule onl$ applied to secondar$ students. The rule onl$ applied to secondar$ students.



Tinker Case Con’t.Tinker Case Con’t.

When elementar$ students wore their armbandsWhen elementar$ students wore their armbandsto school despite the rule the$ weren3tto school despite the rule the$ weren3tsuspended.suspended.

#nstead, the teachers used the opportunit$ to tal#nstead, the teachers used the opportunit$ to tal

about dissent in a democratic societ$.about dissent in a democratic societ$. The older students, who were sincere in their The older students, who were sincere in theirbelies were suspended with the de5ed the rule.belies were suspended with the de5ed the rule.

Throu*h their parents, the$ sued the district Throu*h their parents, the$ sued the districtclaimin* the re*ulation and its enorcementclaimin* the re*ulation and its enorcement

inrin*ed their constitutional ri*ht o ree speech.inrin*ed their constitutional ri*ht o ree speech. The$ ased the Supreme Court to *rant reedom The$ ased the Supreme Court to *rant reedom

o e/pression ri*hts to public school students.o e/pression ri*hts to public school students.



Hazelood School District V.Hazelood School District V.

!ulhmeier "#$%%&!ulhmeier "#$%%&

This case looed more speci5call$ at This case looed more speci5call$ at

student publications andstudent publications and allowed schoolallowed school ocials greater opportunity to censorocials greater opportunity to censor than Tiner. The student newspaper in thisthan Tiner. The student newspaper in this

case was part o a hi*h school 1ournalismcase was part o a hi*h school 1ournalism

class. As such, the Court decided it wasclass. As such, the Court decided it was

sponsored b$ the school and le*itimatel$sponsored b$ the school and le*itimatel$

sub1ect to school control o+er its contentsub1ect to school control o+er its content

and st$le, as lon* as that control ser+ed aand st$le, as lon* as that control ser+ed a

+alid educational purpose.+alid educational purpose.



Hazelood School District V.Hazelood School District V.

!ulhmeier Con’t.!ulhmeier Con’t.

Under 6a7elwood, a publicationUnder 6a7elwood, a publication

would liel$ be considered school8would liel$ be considered school8

sponsored i it is super+ised b$ asponsored i it is super+ised b$ aacult$ member, i it e/ists to teachacult$ member, i it e/ists to teach

either the students who wor on it oreither the students who wor on it or

those who read it, or i it uses thethose who read it, or i it uses theschool3s resources.school3s resources.



The Court’s In'ol'ement The Court’s In'ol'ement

The Court distin*uished between student The Court distin*uished between studentpublications that ser+e an educational purposepublications that ser+e an educational purposeand those that e/ist as orums or studentand those that e/ist as orums or studente/pression. 9+en when a publication ise/pression. 9+en when a publication is

sponsored b$ the school, o4cials cannotsponsored b$ the school, o4cials cannotcensor its content i it is, 0b$ polic$ or b$censor its content i it is, 0b$ polic$ or b$practice,2 an open orum or e/pression.practice,2 an open orum or e/pression.

Liewise, the content o e/tracurricular andLiewise, the content o e/tracurricular and

under*round newspapers ma$ be censoredunder*round newspapers ma$ be censoredonl$ under the Tiner standard, e+en i theonl$ under the Tiner standard, e+en i thepublication in+ol+es the use o schoolpublication in+ol+es the use o schoolresources.resources.



The Court’s Con’t.The Court’s Con’t.

Courts ha+e *enerall$ reco*ni7ed thatCourts ha+e *enerall$ reco*ni7ed thatstudent publications ma$ be censored istudent publications ma$ be censored ithere is material that is obscene as to minorsthere is material that is obscene as to minorsor the is libelous. !ul*ar or oul lan*ua*e isor the is libelous. !ul*ar or oul lan*ua*e is

not necessaril$ sub1ect to censorship:not necessaril$ sub1ect to censorship:althou*h in a &';( decision, <ethel !. =raser,althou*h in a &';( decision, <ethel !. =raser,the Supreme Court upheld the punishment othe Supreme Court upheld the punishment oa student who *a+e a lewd speech beore ana student who *a+e a lewd speech beore anassembl$ o &>8$ear8old students. Accordin*assembl$ o &>8$ear8old students. Accordin*

to Censorship and Selection, b$ 6enr$to Censorship and Selection, b$ 6enr$?eichman, howe+er, 0Whether the Supreme?eichman, howe+er, 0Whether the SupremeCourt will appl$ =raser to studentCourt will appl$ =raser to studentpublications remains unclear2.publications remains unclear2.

william allan kritsonis kritsonis, phd - censorship of student publication - presentation

Documents