William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 6 Censorship

1
Censorship of Student Publication

• You cant tell me what to write!
• William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2
The First Amendment

• The First Amendment to the united State
  Constitution is part of the united State Bill of
  Rights that expressly prohibits the United Sates
  Congress form making laws respecting an
  establishment of religion or that prohibit the
  free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the
  freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the
  press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or
  limit the right to petition the government for a
  redress of grievances.

3

• In the First Amendment the founding Fathers gave
  the free press the protection it must have to
  fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The
  press was to serve the governed, not the
  governors. The governments power to sensor the
  press was abolished so that the press would
  remain forever free to censure the Government.

4
Freedom of the press in the public schools,
however, is governed by a different set of
constitutional precedents. Regulations of the
students newspapers is subject to the Supreme
Court decision in Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier
5
Four Categories of Litigations Concerning
Publications

1. School-sponsored newspapers
2. Nonschool, or underground, newspapers written and
   distributed by students
3. Materials distributed by students at school but
   written and published by nonstudents
4. Internet

6
School Sponsored

• Hazelwood decision permitted the school to
  control or censor a school-sponsored paper.
  Nonschool publications may be regulated only by
  time, place, and manner of distribution they
  cannot be regulated as to content. These
  restrictions are contingent upon the school
  having created a limited public forum as opposed
  to a nonpublic or closed forum.
• In Hazelwood the court said that the school
  paper (theatrical productions, and other
  expression perceived to bear the imprimatur)
  was not a public forum.

7
Underground Publication

• If a school permits non-school materials to be
  distributed then a limited public forum has been
  created. When this happens the restriction has
  to be content-neutral.
• Can
• Place a restriction on time, place, and manner
  restrictions on access to school grounds
• Cant
• Control the content as is permitted with
  school-sponsored publications.

8
Underground Publication Continued

• Burch v. Barker
• Student-written our-page newspaper entitled Bad
  Astra. This was critical of the schools
  administration and did not contain vulgarity,
  obscenity, or defamatory statements.
• The school was not able to review its content
  before distribution it was not school related
  and Hazelwood did not apply.

9
Religious Publications

• Distributing religious newsletters written by
  nonstudents.
• One court said it was ok, but the other courts
  decision have not been uniformed.
• Under Hazelwood
• If School Officials have open to the school to
  indiscriminate use, then the school becomes a
  public forum an a limited public forum can be
  created. If this is the situation distributing
  religious information is constitutional.
• Dont get caught in the situation / Do not open
  the school to groups.

10
School officials may exercise editorial control
over school-sponsored publications if they have a
legitimate pedagogical reason. For nonschool
publications if the school has created a limited
public forum, then the school can only control
the time, place, and manner of distribution, but
not the content. If a school policy required
that students submit materials before
distribution, then strong due process procedures
must be in place, or the policy is vulnerable to
prior restraint challenge.
11
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier(School
Editorials)

• Spring of 83, Journalism teacher submit page
  proofs of each Spectrum issue to the Principal
• May 13 principal object to two of the articles
• Students experiences with pregnancy (three
  students)
• Impact of divorce on students at the school
• Principals Concerns
• Different names were used, but he felt you could
  still figure out who the students were
• Articles references to birth control and sexual
  activity were inappropriate for some younger
  students
• Student identified by name regarding a divorce
  parents were not given the opportunity to respond
  or to consent

12
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier(School
Editorials) Continued

• Principal concluded to publish a four pager
  instead of the six eliminating the divorce and
  pregnancy pages or to not publish a paper at all.
  He directed the teacher to withhold the two
  mentioned publications.
• Courts decision Sided with the Administrator.

13
Internet and Free Speech

• Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
• Beussink claims that the Woodland School
  District suspended hem from school for ten days
  because he had posted a homepage on the Internet
  which was critical of Woodland High School. The
  homepage's criticism of the high school included
  crude and vulgar language.

14
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District

• Court Decision
• First Amendment right was violated. clean up
  homepage
• Student faced academic harm
• He failed 4 classes because of this and lack of
  credit will delay his graduation at the end of
  the school year.
• Students homepage did not materially and
  substantially interfere with school discipline.
• The harm to the student is greater than that to
  the district if the injunction is not granted.
• District is enjoined from
• Using the 10 day suspension in its application of
  its absenteeism policy,
• Enforcing any other sanction arising from
  Beussinks homepage which is the subject of this
  lawsuit,
• From restricting Beussinks use of his home
  computer to repost that homepage
• The injunctive relief was GRANTED.

15
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District

• Showed a friend at home and she was upset about
  it
• She told a teacher the next day, but Beussink had
  not given her the address teacher pulled up his
  homepage and told the administration. The
  principal viewed it
• Student was disciplined because the principal was
  upset that it had been view at school he did not
  know other students have viewed the page by the
  end of the day as well
• Student suspended for 5 days then a second notice
  was send that he would be suspended for an
  additional 5 days.
• 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 it 18.5 days.

16
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)

• Wide-Awake Productions was denied funding for its
  newspaper, Wide Awake A Christian Perspective
  at the University of Virginia, because it
  primarily promotes a particular belief in or
  about a deity or an ultimate reality
• The University unlike most used its Student
  Activities Fund to pay the printing cost not the
  universitys funds.

17
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
(1995)(School Editorials)

• Decision of the Court
• Ruled as unconstitutional student organization
  funding systems in which some student
  organization expression (e.g., publications,
  speakers, posters) was paid for by the
  university, but that by student religious
  organization was not.

18
Other Cases to Note

• Widmar v. Vincet (1981)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1981)
• Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
• Board of Education of the Westside Community
  Schools v. Mergens (1990)
• Kincaid v. Gibson (1997)
• Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free
  School District (1993)