Jamie+Gregory

Reporting the Truth: The Rights of Student Journalists by Jamie Gregory Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. "Trayvon Martin case: Texas student's cartoon causes controversy." //Los Angeles Times//. 29 Mar 2012. Web.

Guiding research question: Should student journalists enjoy the same free speech and freedom of the press rights as professional journalists? I am interested in the role of student journalism because I was a journalism teacher and was also the student newspaper adviser at Byrnes High School. Several Supreme Court cases relate to the free speech and free press rights of student journalists in public schools. The problem is whether or not student journalists can cover the same topics as professional journalists. For example, should student journalists be able to write an investigative piece reporting on a rise of marijuana use among the student body? In the above cartoon, University of Texas at Austin student and journalism major Stephanie Eisner wanted to "criticize the media's attempt to simplify and sensationalize news stories" after the shooting of Trayvon Martin this past March in Florida (Hennessy-Fiske). She resigned from the student newspaper after a heavy backlash, with people accusing her of being insensitive during an emotional time. Should journalists ever self-censor? Are some topics off-limits, particularly for non-professional journalists? Or is this type of censorship limiting students' First Amendment rights?

> || Summaries of court cases that have been argued related to the issue of the rights of student journalists What I Think The issue of the rights of student journalists is going to remain an issue for a long time to come. Because journalism is no longer confined to a physical page, there are new concerns to consider: should student journalists use Twitter accounts? What about Facebook? Tumblr? If so, does the school have a right to censor the use of social media? In a broad sense, I think that censorship is never the answer. In the //Yeo vs. Lexington// court case, I agreed with the outcome wholeheartedly. Separating a student publication from the jurisdiction of the school officials seems to be a good answer; however, if the student journalists faced a lawsuit and lost, what would they do? They would not have the school's legal protection. I suppose that means they would have to invest in their own legal means of protection, and I'm not sure how feasible that would be. However, there are helpful organizations like the Student Press Law Center that provide free legal advice to student journalists. There may be news stories that would be inappropriate to publish in a school setting; however, the staffs should make those editorial decisions or they will never be practicing the true art of journalism. News stories should never be rejected simply because of a fear of what might happen due to publication or because the principal does not personally agree with the stories. Works Cited Bowen, John. "Three Landmark Legal Cases Student Journalists Should Know." //hsj.org//. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
 * Pros (People who argue in favor of student journalism censorship) || Cons (People who argue against student journalism censorship ||
 * * students are not professional journalists
 * students are in a special situation at a school (not in a public forum)
 * students should not have the right to publish anything that can potentially cause violence or disruptions
 * the student journalism program should promote a positive view of the school and its community
 * according to the //Hazelwood v Kuhlemeier// Supreme Court case, the school principal has the right to censor student publications that might interfere with the educational mission of the school || * according to the //Tinker vs Des Moines// court case from 1969, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v Des Moines, ACLU.org)
 * student journalists are "in training" to become professional journalists and so should be able to complete real-world assignments
 * students should not be "protected" from potentially controversial ideas simply because they may be controversial
 * speech may not be suppressed simply because it does not mesh with someone's opinions
 * principals should have to submit "some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything" (SPLC)
 * Court Case name || Issue || Holding ||
 * Tinker v Des Moines (1969) || Students wore black armbands to school in order to protest against the Vietnam War. They were subsequently suspended. Did the school violate the students' First Amendment rights to free speech and expression? || The Supreme Court held that the school did in fact unconstitutionally violate their First Amendment rights. One of the more famous quotes about students' rights comes from the majority opinion: "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." ||
 * Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) || Principal of Hazelwood East High School required the school newspaper, Spectrum, to delete two news stories: one about pregnant students at the school and the other about a student's experience with divorce. He feared that the pregnant students, although anonymous in the article, could still be identified by the readers, and that the student's parents in the divorce article had not been given an opportunity to respond to the claims made by the student in the article. || The Supreme Court held that the principal did not violate the student journalists' rights to freedom of the press. Educators may limit students' speech, expression, and press rights if those interfere with the school's educational mission. ||
 * Yeo v Town of Lexington (1997) || The Lexington County School Committee decided to adopt a safe-sex approach to teaching sex education and therefore made condoms freely available to students. Some students organized to protest against this action (including Yeo) and wanted to publish an ad in the student yearbook and newspaper promoting abstinence. The yearbook and newspaper staffs refused to print his ad due to its controversial nature. He sued, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been abridged. || The Court of Appeals ruled that Yeo cannot prove that the school abridged his First Amendment rights because the student publication staffs made the decision not to run his ad, not the school itself (the principal did not practice prior review). The staffs have the right to review which ads will be run and which will be rejected. Because the students rejected his ad, and not the school itself, the judges ruled that the students have the right not to print it and to have a policy manual clearly stating its advertisement policy. ||

//Douglas E. Yeo vs. Town of Lexington//. No. 96-1623. United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. //FindLaw//. 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

Raskin, Jamin. "Freedom of the Student Press: All the News the School Sees Fit to Print." //We the Students//. 3rd Ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008. 63-77. Print.

"Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969)." //ACLU.org//. American Civil Liberties Union. 16 Mar 2007. Web. 10 Dec 2012.

//Tinker v. Des Moines//. No. 393 U.S. 503. 1969. Supreme Court of the United States. //FindLaw.// 2012. Web. 10 Dec 2012.