The media are the backbones of the public. Therefore, they must be assertive and know when to interfere with the courts without fear that the government will infringe on the public's freedom of speech and press. For instance, if the court decides to close the doors of certain criminal trials to the public, the media should instantly contest with the court the public's right to know and the media's right to access information that shape story investigations. Without the proactive role of the media putting their foot in the door, the government ends up imposing prior restraints on the reporters' investigative pieces. This prevents the exposure of the truth hidden behind the caution-taped, closed door criminal trials. The government cannot withhold records that, once on file, are accessible to the public, and it certainly should not place gag orders on the press. These restrictions should not be attempted by the government because this action is unconstitutional and very rarely justified.
The courts can go as far as issuing a gag order on its defendants, victims, and witnesses to prevent them from speaking to reporters who publish trial predictions during the pre-trial hearings. Although gag orders are meant to stifle the pre-trial prejudice the public may develop through the media's interview with certain parties, the court is stepping over its boundaries by indirectly imposing a prior restraint (Prior). In other words, by taking away the source (i.e. defendants, victims or witnesses), the press no longer has access to vital information, which prevents them from uncovering prosecutions, cross-examinations, and judicial processes that were misconducted. Even if reporters interviewed their sources before the gag order, the court can order the press not to publish the information. This prior restraint is dangerous and unconstitutional because it places limitations on the press' ability to look into unconstitutional moves made during judicial processes and places the burden of what to publish on the speakers, not the government. In other words, the press becomes uncertain about which information the government will restrict, so they experience chilled speech. According to Chief Justice Warren Burger in the Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart case (1976), he believes it is unconstitutional to execute gag orders on the press. Burger states that prior restraints on speech and publication are intolerable infringements on First Amendment rights. He adds that the risk of criminal sanctions after publication chills speech, but prior restraint may just as well freeze speech altogether (Prior).
A more recent example of a gag order is the Sheley case in Galesburg, Ill. Nicholas Sheley, who was accused of first degree murder and responsible for eight deaths, sat in Knox County jail and spoke with an Associate Press member on Sept. 23, 2008. Sheley commented to the press that the court was not fulfilling his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and his right to know the nature of his accusations, which he claimed the court never spoke to him about (Judge). Immediately, the Ninth Circuit Judge James Steward issued a gag order, which prevented Sheley from standing trial until he is fit for a hearing. Although the government didn't directly impede the AP from doing further research on this court case, the judge took away access to a vital source. Judge Steward seems to think the AP reporter mustered too much courage in Sheley to be uncooperative. That doesn't justify placing further restrictions on Sheley, who does have a point when he says the court did not follow through on his Sixth Amendment rights. In a way, it would make the judge look worse off because he placed a gag order on the alleged criminal who had revealed to the public that he had no basic trial rights. However because the defendant always has the chance to be brought back to the trial, the government is not completely denying Sheley his rights (Gag). The problem is, the press no longer controls the streamline of information between the defendant and the public after the court blocks access to Sheley. Removing sources' ability to speak to the press places more suspicion on the court's ability to oversee the criminal court system in a just manner.
In some instances, the court has the constitutional right to issue gag orders directed at the victims, defendants, witnesses and lawyers. Some judges and prosecutors may argue that a gag order is the only way to ensure a fair trial. A gag order can be a positive move if it protects the Sixth Amendment rights of the individual undergoing criminal proceeding. This saves the defendants from facing public misjudgments. For instance, United States District Judge Samuel Kent was the first judge to be indicted for sex crimes. The alleged victim wanted to manipulate the media coverage by openly telling the media a biased story (Court). However, once the court issued the gag order, no one involved in the criminal trial had the freedom to express their views other than in front of a public trial setting. This protected Judge Kent's assurance of a fair trial and prevented the public from forming misconceptions about the defendant before the court laid out the full scope of the trial. The court may also deny the press access to "rap sheets" because they invade personal privacy rights. In the Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989) case, the court pointed out that "rap sheets" are clearly private information that protects criminals.
In some cases, the prosecutors would issue a gag order to a third party to prevent the disclosure of documents related to investigations that need more time to examine. For instance, a county prosecutor investigating the sexual assault case on the University of Iowa campus informed Iowa administrators to withhold from the public copies of the subpoenas related to the investigation (Iowa) in November 2007. When newspapers requested copies of subpoenas Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said they couldn't obtain these documents because she was treating the case like a grand jury proceeding. The Iowa City Press-Citizen filed a lawsuit against the university because the school wouldn't provide them with the documents containing the judge's statement about the sexual assault investigation. In a sense, Lyness was not specific about her reasons for preventing Iowa from releasing the documents. In fact, this act of withholding is an indirect method of using prior restraint. Since the newspapers could not obtain the documents, which would be considered public records, the press lost its opportunity to delve deeper into an investigation that would inform and serve the public. In any case, the press couldn't exercise its freedom to report impartially on an issue because there was a vague restriction on those public documents. The court should refrain from overly vague reasons for issuing a gag order because this acts as an unnecessary barrier between the press and the court.
By taking proper procedures, the media has the right to obtain certain confidential reports and look deeper into criminal cases. This is not to say that the media has complete access to all information related to the criminal investigations. For instance, reporters cannot obtain a copy of a police warrant until the judge issues it, sends a copy to the person being searched, and information about the items seized and the officer's complaints have been filed in the clerk of court (Access). Likewise, there was a way for the media to obtain the copies of the subpoena in the Iowa case. The report mentioned that the university was a third party. Although court officials must abide by the order to seal subpoenas, the university doesn't have to comply (Iowa). Thus, the newspaper could have obtained the copies of subpoenas from the university instead of asking the court, and their actions would've been justified. However, the unfortunate government issuance of a gag order prevented the media from obtaining the information that would otherwise be readily accessible.
Although the press may not win every challenge, there are special cases where publishing the truth discourages the judges and prosecutors from issuing gag orders. More specifically, in Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978), the court protected a publication revealing factual information that served the public interest and examining the judicial proceedings. This was despite the fact that a Virginia statute called it a criminal offense to disclose information during pending judicial proceedings (Prior). This shows that the power of truth has potential to override existing laws.
Before 2000, Illinois had no statutory provision that allowed the media access to arrest reports (Access). In 2000, Illinois enacted a new statute that requires law enforcement agencies to make available information that identifies the person, lays out the charges related to the arrest, specifies the time and location of the arrest, reveals the name of the arresting authorities, informs the amount of bail or bond, and tells the time and date the arrested person was received, discharged or transferred from custody (Access). Changes in the law and precedence set by court cases are opening up access to a plethora of information for the public and making it harder for the government to force a prior restraint on the media.
The most important note to make about gag orders is that the government shouldn't use them as weapons against the press. The Court should not issue gag orders for trials where there is no evident danger nor should the media and public back down from their right to challenge the gag orders. As long as the interest of the public is at stake, the government must yield to the media's duty to serve that interest. However, the media relinquishes its rights to obtain confidential information in the face of imminent intrusions of privacy.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6976 (Court issues broad gag order in federal judge's sex-abuse trial)
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19519 (Iowa prosecutor blocks release of files in sex-assault investigation)
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1464869792/Judge-issues-gag-order-in-Sheley-case (Judge issues gag order on Sheley case)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gag+law (Gag order- Legal Dictionary)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=427&invol=539 (Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart 1976)
http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/pdf/Media_Law_Chap7.pdf (Access to courts and documents)
http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/pdf/Media_Law_Chap13.pdf (Prior restraint)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Newspaper companies go out of business
"In the past, the government knew that the media would take legal action every time information was restricted. But now the government has gotten 'pretty canny in knowing' that with financial pressures 'there’s less fight in the media to battle for information.' "
I was utterly shocked when Brad Maas, the leader of the investigative team at Denver's CBS 4, spoke these words at the National Press Club Centennial Forum (Industry) on Sept. 9, 2008. There's no doubt that the government must lend a hand financially in cases where newspaper companies struggle to provide maximal and unbiased news coverage, especially on government-related issues. Not doing so would put the risk of hampering the freedom of the press into the government's hands. The government cannot simply let the economic crisis take the fate of newspaper companies because eventually they shut down or lose their voice in the marketplace of ideas. The newspaper companies' lack of money limits their scope of news coverage to stories that are cheap and easy to do and don't require in-depth research. The government needs to take a pro-active role to fund the print news medium to ensure that the voices of the press remain unstifled and uninhibited from fully expressing ideas.
It is painful for a reporter to even admit that the government has autonomous control over the amount of access the media has to information these days. I'm almost convinced that money really does make the world go around because the government controls the purse and inadvertently hushes the media. The reality is, newspaper companies who are struck heaviest with this year's economic depression can't afford to sue the government when officials conduct unfair moves such as withholding federal information, closing down cases that require further journalistic investigation, and suing newspaper companies for publishing government officials' phone, voting, or any other legitimately accessible records. That leaves these companies to publish less speech and not more. No one would dare take the risk of disclosing any governmental information if struggling newspaper companies know the government will sue, asking for money that they do not have. That is a clear violation of the first amendment rights to the freedom of speech.
The economic depression is taking a disastrous hit on newspaper companies nationwide. Newspaper companies are struggling to finance their publications, and older, more experienced employees are substituted for the younger generation reporters who will work for less pay and won't touch the controversial topics. Although most people would use newspapers as doormats or fly swatters, newspaper companies are willing to see some pages go to waste for the sake of reaching its few loyal readers.
Nevertheless, newspaper readership continues to decline. The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that nearly two-thirds of the nation's newspaper circulation declined, including major companies such as The Washington Post and The Chicago Tribune. The Washington Post alone experienced a loss of 24,000 readers per week, averaging a three percent drop in newspaper readership (Media). The Chicago Tribune reported that it took out its book review newspaper section in favor of a smaller "books and media section" this month. In September, The New York Times resorted to pulling out the Metro Section altogether and instead added a couple pages after the national and international news pages designated for the metro section readers (Metro). In addition to the readership decline, print journalism is losing its credibility as an unbiased source of information since the government keeps a keen watch on what the papers say about them (Why). The lack of readership coupled with the firing of half the staff all point to the need for government to intervene. Editors are left to make content decisions that affect the level of readership interests. Money is fully susceptible to changing the usual spectrum of diversity in the stories to a more narrow scope. It's not the freedom of the press without the government to advocate positive freedom-- the financial assistance necessary to keep newspaper coverage impartial.
These are compromises that the newspaper companies should not have to make. After all, in order to ensure the freedom of the press and the robust exchange of ideas, the speakers, in this case newspaper companies, mustn't feel inhibited or limited in the scope of their press coverage and investigations just because they are balancing a tight budget and can't use more than six pages to tell the news. What is more critical is that the government needs to provide positive liberties-- a means of helping finance long-time operating newspaper publications that are on the brink of shutting down. If newspaper companies must forfeit their voice in the marketplace of ideas simply because it costs money to thoroughly research investigation and lawsuits, there is clearly an obstacle standing in front of the press.
However, this concept of the government's need to take an active role in cases where the newspaper companies need funding to keep publishing is not always beneficial. There is a flip-side to the government's involvement in funding newspapers. If the government provides extra budgets for each individual newspaper, the papers will become heavily dependent on government, leaving room for readers to question the objectivity of the news coverage. Essentially, the government will possess the power to control the media's press angle inadvertently by dangling monetary incentives to cover less politically controversial topics. The media is placing a huge risk of losing credibility if newspaper companies turn to the government to help their businesses get back on their feet.
http://blog.press.org/?p=814 (Industry Downturn Spurs Gov't Push Back on Info)
http://openrecords.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/why-the-decline-of-newspaper-readership-is-bad-part-ix/ (Why the decline of newspaper readership is bad)
I was utterly shocked when Brad Maas, the leader of the investigative team at Denver's CBS 4, spoke these words at the National Press Club Centennial Forum (Industry) on Sept. 9, 2008. There's no doubt that the government must lend a hand financially in cases where newspaper companies struggle to provide maximal and unbiased news coverage, especially on government-related issues. Not doing so would put the risk of hampering the freedom of the press into the government's hands. The government cannot simply let the economic crisis take the fate of newspaper companies because eventually they shut down or lose their voice in the marketplace of ideas. The newspaper companies' lack of money limits their scope of news coverage to stories that are cheap and easy to do and don't require in-depth research. The government needs to take a pro-active role to fund the print news medium to ensure that the voices of the press remain unstifled and uninhibited from fully expressing ideas.
It is painful for a reporter to even admit that the government has autonomous control over the amount of access the media has to information these days. I'm almost convinced that money really does make the world go around because the government controls the purse and inadvertently hushes the media. The reality is, newspaper companies who are struck heaviest with this year's economic depression can't afford to sue the government when officials conduct unfair moves such as withholding federal information, closing down cases that require further journalistic investigation, and suing newspaper companies for publishing government officials' phone, voting, or any other legitimately accessible records. That leaves these companies to publish less speech and not more. No one would dare take the risk of disclosing any governmental information if struggling newspaper companies know the government will sue, asking for money that they do not have. That is a clear violation of the first amendment rights to the freedom of speech.
The economic depression is taking a disastrous hit on newspaper companies nationwide. Newspaper companies are struggling to finance their publications, and older, more experienced employees are substituted for the younger generation reporters who will work for less pay and won't touch the controversial topics. Although most people would use newspapers as doormats or fly swatters, newspaper companies are willing to see some pages go to waste for the sake of reaching its few loyal readers.
Nevertheless, newspaper readership continues to decline. The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that nearly two-thirds of the nation's newspaper circulation declined, including major companies such as The Washington Post and The Chicago Tribune. The Washington Post alone experienced a loss of 24,000 readers per week, averaging a three percent drop in newspaper readership (Media). The Chicago Tribune reported that it took out its book review newspaper section in favor of a smaller "books and media section" this month. In September, The New York Times resorted to pulling out the Metro Section altogether and instead added a couple pages after the national and international news pages designated for the metro section readers (Metro). In addition to the readership decline, print journalism is losing its credibility as an unbiased source of information since the government keeps a keen watch on what the papers say about them (Why). The lack of readership coupled with the firing of half the staff all point to the need for government to intervene. Editors are left to make content decisions that affect the level of readership interests. Money is fully susceptible to changing the usual spectrum of diversity in the stories to a more narrow scope. It's not the freedom of the press without the government to advocate positive freedom-- the financial assistance necessary to keep newspaper coverage impartial.
These are compromises that the newspaper companies should not have to make. After all, in order to ensure the freedom of the press and the robust exchange of ideas, the speakers, in this case newspaper companies, mustn't feel inhibited or limited in the scope of their press coverage and investigations just because they are balancing a tight budget and can't use more than six pages to tell the news. What is more critical is that the government needs to provide positive liberties-- a means of helping finance long-time operating newspaper publications that are on the brink of shutting down. If newspaper companies must forfeit their voice in the marketplace of ideas simply because it costs money to thoroughly research investigation and lawsuits, there is clearly an obstacle standing in front of the press.
However, this concept of the government's need to take an active role in cases where the newspaper companies need funding to keep publishing is not always beneficial. There is a flip-side to the government's involvement in funding newspapers. If the government provides extra budgets for each individual newspaper, the papers will become heavily dependent on government, leaving room for readers to question the objectivity of the news coverage. Essentially, the government will possess the power to control the media's press angle inadvertently by dangling monetary incentives to cover less politically controversial topics. The media is placing a huge risk of losing credibility if newspaper companies turn to the government to help their businesses get back on their feet.
The government's lack of intervention isn't the only cause of declining newspaper readership. With the diverse choices of media in a declining market, consumers will become more stratified and spread out. Eventually, newspaper readership will thin out because some of the consumers have made a definitive choice to use the Internet as their main source of information. With the Internet providing a 24/7 forum of information that is available with a click of the button, newspaper subscriptions and readership level have dropped about 2.5% during the weekdays and 3.1% on Sundays (Newspaper).
The American public has a right to access the gamut of media available today. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that all media resources have an equal chance to compete with one another. It is entirely necessary for the government to take the stand when newspaper companies go out of business because no funding will further decrease the availability of an important medium. The government should be supportive without imbuing its own ideas into the media.
Sources:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4623 (Don't Blame the Journalism)http://blog.press.org/?p=814 (Industry Downturn Spurs Gov't Push Back on Info)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E6D7103DF937A35756C0A9629C8B63 (The Media Business: Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline Overall)
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=92228 (Metro newspapers eliminate key sections)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-05-08-newspaper-circulation_x.htm (Newspaper sales dip, but websites gain)
http://openrecords.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/why-the-decline-of-newspaper-readership-is-bad-part-ix/ (Why the decline of newspaper readership is bad)
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Unrestricted freedom of press entails risk
California removes prior restraint in school newspapers,
Could this unrestricted freedom of press travel down windy path?
Unlimited freedom of speech in student newspapers is not a good idea, and the lack of censorship puts the school on dangerous grounds. The school risks letting the information in the newspapers create imminent threats to safety and even generate hypothetically harmful ideas, all in the good spirit of protecting the speakers’ speech first. Not to mention, schools will have to manage the risk of taking liability for tortious content printed in the school newspaper, making unlimited freedom even more hazardous.
In an effort to give school newspapers unlimited freedom of speech, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill on Sept. 28. This bill protects high school and college advisers from receiving administrative retaliation against students’ speech.1 As a result, school administrators in California have no right to prior review or prior restraint when dealing with school-sponsored student newspapers.
Proponents of this legislative would give accolades to the Governor for protecting the work environment for the staff members, especially college professors and high school journalism teachers. Moreover, students can breathe easier now that they can write as passionately as they want and not get in trouble as long as the Governor’s signature on the bill doesn’t smudge. In reality, the newspaper has multiple sections. The news pages tell the facts as plain as white wallpaper. The opinions sections throws in more seasoning and jargon to argue for or against the facts. Frankly, people have a right to use the press to deliver their message in whichever form they want.
Of course, the minimal responsibilities as student journalists are to be ethical and keep out the lewd or obscene writing. They must keep in mind their audience, but it isn’t their job to predict how much the audience can handle. The readers aren’t a captive audience. They can choose not to read the newspaper. After all, the First Amendment with regards to the freedom of speech, should protect the speakers’ right to express an idea above the recipients’ right not to be offended. Wait, a minute. There is no such thing as the right not to be offended. In a marketplace of ideas, one always risks getting offended. That’s just the trade-off for the plethora of freedoms that we privileged Americans all possess.
Moreover, here’s another support case for those who oppose prior review and restraint of school-sponsored newspapers. In the Novato Unified School District v. Smith case,2 a Latino students’ parents complained to the school that an article entitled “Immigration” was offensive. After the school sent home letters saying the editorial should not have been published for its “racially inflammatory statements,” a father and a high school student filed a lawsuit against the school saying they violated their First Amendment rights. This court held in favor of the father and student based on the idea that no matter how provocative a students' printed speech is, it can't be pulled because the article doesn't disrupting the operation of the school. The court wouldn't possibly favor crude speech. This is clearly creating dissent from an ethnic minority. These types of articles need more discretion in a diverse student population because some people do take personal offense. However, my argument supporting prior restraint loses in this court case. A key factor to remember is that speech can be as offensive as long as it doesn’t harm anyone and no one is at risk.
Now to rip apart the proponents’ fluff, I want to emphasize a couple key bullet points. The moment one gives over unlimited power without censorship to another, there may be self-serving interests involved in the second party. On Sept. 30, the California appeals court overturned a judge’s ruling to prevent The Orange County Register from writing a story about the trial, in which the newspaper was a defendant.3 Even though this paper reported on a true court case, there needs to be a line drawn between what is newsworthy and what is self-coverage. If a school-sponsored newspaper had to decide whether or not a story about its own paper would make it to press, there should be no debate: don’t be the news you report.4 Texas Christian University’s Daily Skiff ran a story about its own newspapers being stolen. What happens physically to the newspaper should be left out of news coverage. Newspapers should act as a mediator between the news and the people-- essentially, newspapers should be nameless. As an adviser in this position, he or she should at least make available a variety of stories that come from the students instead of fawning over the paper’s own life story. So if there’s going to be no censorship on school newspapers, at least try to aim for diversity in its stories.
Not everything should be published. Students who write about knowing a way to hack into the school’s computer system should have no right to appear on a school-sponsored paper. If it does, the school should have the full authority to issue criminal investigations, depending on the legality of the content being discussed. The administrators can even target the student writers for their stories and take legal action. People may argue that there’s no real freedom of the press if students feel restrained from writing juicy stories that school or State authorities will attack despite any meaningful message or forewarning that the articles may deliver. In the Justin J. Boucher v. School Board of the District of Greenfield case,5 Boucher wrote an article about the computer security vulnerabilities in his high school. He alluded to the bad password systems and encouraged other classmates to exploit the school’s computer security vulnerabilities as long as they didn’t damage anything within the mainframe computer system. This article was asking to be pulled, but no one took the initiative to do a prior review. Stories that lead students to believe that their school’s security system is fallible immediately feel that their privacy is at risk. This story may cause an unnecessary disturbance in the student body. To prevent students from getting ideas from creative stories such as this, the administration needs to review certain articles first. In issues that will immediately put the school in potential danger, the administrators knows to make the more rational call on whether or not the story will make it to press.
Sources:
1 Calif. passes journalism adviser protection bill http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1817
2 Novato Unified School District v. Smith http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-summary-judgment/11473083-1.html
3 Calif. appeals Court: Newspaper can cover own trial http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20624
4 Stacks of Skiffs found in dumpsters http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=f3d0c629-ec23-4e74-9e5c-0113555305890
5 Justin J. Boucher v. School Board of the School District of Greenfield
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=973433
Could this unrestricted freedom of press travel down windy path?
Unlimited freedom of speech in student newspapers is not a good idea, and the lack of censorship puts the school on dangerous grounds. The school risks letting the information in the newspapers create imminent threats to safety and even generate hypothetically harmful ideas, all in the good spirit of protecting the speakers’ speech first. Not to mention, schools will have to manage the risk of taking liability for tortious content printed in the school newspaper, making unlimited freedom even more hazardous.
In an effort to give school newspapers unlimited freedom of speech, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill on Sept. 28. This bill protects high school and college advisers from receiving administrative retaliation against students’ speech.1 As a result, school administrators in California have no right to prior review or prior restraint when dealing with school-sponsored student newspapers.
Proponents of this legislative would give accolades to the Governor for protecting the work environment for the staff members, especially college professors and high school journalism teachers. Moreover, students can breathe easier now that they can write as passionately as they want and not get in trouble as long as the Governor’s signature on the bill doesn’t smudge. In reality, the newspaper has multiple sections. The news pages tell the facts as plain as white wallpaper. The opinions sections throws in more seasoning and jargon to argue for or against the facts. Frankly, people have a right to use the press to deliver their message in whichever form they want.
Of course, the minimal responsibilities as student journalists are to be ethical and keep out the lewd or obscene writing. They must keep in mind their audience, but it isn’t their job to predict how much the audience can handle. The readers aren’t a captive audience. They can choose not to read the newspaper. After all, the First Amendment with regards to the freedom of speech, should protect the speakers’ right to express an idea above the recipients’ right not to be offended. Wait, a minute. There is no such thing as the right not to be offended. In a marketplace of ideas, one always risks getting offended. That’s just the trade-off for the plethora of freedoms that we privileged Americans all possess.
Moreover, here’s another support case for those who oppose prior review and restraint of school-sponsored newspapers. In the Novato Unified School District v. Smith case,2 a Latino students’ parents complained to the school that an article entitled “Immigration” was offensive. After the school sent home letters saying the editorial should not have been published for its “racially inflammatory statements,” a father and a high school student filed a lawsuit against the school saying they violated their First Amendment rights. This court held in favor of the father and student based on the idea that no matter how provocative a students' printed speech is, it can't be pulled because the article doesn't disrupting the operation of the school. The court wouldn't possibly favor crude speech. This is clearly creating dissent from an ethnic minority. These types of articles need more discretion in a diverse student population because some people do take personal offense. However, my argument supporting prior restraint loses in this court case. A key factor to remember is that speech can be as offensive as long as it doesn’t harm anyone and no one is at risk.
Now to rip apart the proponents’ fluff, I want to emphasize a couple key bullet points. The moment one gives over unlimited power without censorship to another, there may be self-serving interests involved in the second party. On Sept. 30, the California appeals court overturned a judge’s ruling to prevent The Orange County Register from writing a story about the trial, in which the newspaper was a defendant.3 Even though this paper reported on a true court case, there needs to be a line drawn between what is newsworthy and what is self-coverage. If a school-sponsored newspaper had to decide whether or not a story about its own paper would make it to press, there should be no debate: don’t be the news you report.4 Texas Christian University’s Daily Skiff ran a story about its own newspapers being stolen. What happens physically to the newspaper should be left out of news coverage. Newspapers should act as a mediator between the news and the people-- essentially, newspapers should be nameless. As an adviser in this position, he or she should at least make available a variety of stories that come from the students instead of fawning over the paper’s own life story. So if there’s going to be no censorship on school newspapers, at least try to aim for diversity in its stories.
Not everything should be published. Students who write about knowing a way to hack into the school’s computer system should have no right to appear on a school-sponsored paper. If it does, the school should have the full authority to issue criminal investigations, depending on the legality of the content being discussed. The administrators can even target the student writers for their stories and take legal action. People may argue that there’s no real freedom of the press if students feel restrained from writing juicy stories that school or State authorities will attack despite any meaningful message or forewarning that the articles may deliver. In the Justin J. Boucher v. School Board of the District of Greenfield case,5 Boucher wrote an article about the computer security vulnerabilities in his high school. He alluded to the bad password systems and encouraged other classmates to exploit the school’s computer security vulnerabilities as long as they didn’t damage anything within the mainframe computer system. This article was asking to be pulled, but no one took the initiative to do a prior review. Stories that lead students to believe that their school’s security system is fallible immediately feel that their privacy is at risk. This story may cause an unnecessary disturbance in the student body. To prevent students from getting ideas from creative stories such as this, the administration needs to review certain articles first. In issues that will immediately put the school in potential danger, the administrators knows to make the more rational call on whether or not the story will make it to press.
Sources:
1 Calif. passes journalism adviser protection bill http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1817
2 Novato Unified School District v. Smith http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-summary-judgment/11473083-1.html
3 Calif. appeals Court: Newspaper can cover own trial http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20624
4 Stacks of Skiffs found in dumpsters http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=f3d0c629-ec23-4e74-9e5c-0113555305890
5 Justin J. Boucher v. School Board of the School District of Greenfield
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=973433