* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier In May 1983, students in the
Document related concepts
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier In May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis, Missouri, generated the final edition of their school paper, the Spectrum. As was customary, they submitted the paper to their advisor, Howard Emerson, who was new to the job. He followed the procedures of the recently departed previous advisor, giving the principal, Robert Reynolds, the opportunity to review the paper prior to publication. When Reynolds reviewed the paper, he found two articles that concerned him. The first article addressed the issue of teen pregnancy, including comments from pregnant students at the school. Although names were not given, Reynolds thought there were enough details in the article to make it easy for other students to determine the identities of the pregnant teens. He was concerned about the privacy of those students. The second article was about divorce and, like the first article, this one included personal articles. In this article, Reynolds was not concerned so much about the students, but, rather, about what they said about their families. For instance, one student whose parents were divorced made negative comments about her father, claiming that her father was always out with the guys, that he didn't spend enough time with his family, and that the father and mother were always arguing. Reynolds was troubled by the fact that the father had not been given a chance to defend himself by responding to his daughter's comments. He also noticed that the article mentioned sex and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade should be reading about sex and birth control. Reynolds wanted the students to make changes in their articles, but he was afraid that if they took the time to do so, they would miss the deadline for publishing the Spectrum. He did not want that to happen, especially because it was the last issue of the year and there would not be another chance to publish the paper. He felt like he had to make a quick decision, so he told Emerson to delete the two pages with the questionable articles and publish the remainder of the paper. He informed his superiors in the school system of this decision; they supported him wholeheartedly. The students had invested a great deal of time and energy in producing the paper and felt that they had followed proper journalism procedures. If they had been approached about the problems, they may have been able to resolve them. They were upset to find out instead that two pages, which included a number of non-offensive articles, had been deleted. They felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights, so they took their case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. This court did not agree with the students; the judges said that school officials might impose limits on students' speech in activities that are "an integral part of the school's educational function" as long as their decision "has a substantial and reasonable basis". In other words, the court felt that if the school has a good reason to do so, it could place limits on curricular activities, such as the publication of the school newspaper. Unhappy with the outcome, the students appealed their case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This court reversed the decision of the lower court, saying that the students' First Amendment rights were violated. In the opinion, the court conceded that the newspaper was indeed a part of the school curriculum but noted that it was also a "public forum". As a public forum, the newspaper was "intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint". Because the paper was a forum for student discussion, the principal or other officials could censor it only when "necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline . . . or the rights of others". The school appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. In determining whether or not students' rights were violated, it would consider whether or not the student newspaper was a public forum and whether the First Amendment "requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech". 1st Amendment – Freedom of the Press Notes We all want to be informed and have the right to make informed and reasoned decisions about issues that affect our lives. We can read the news, watch it, listen to it, spread it, publish it, and speak it. To do so, we need accurate, reliable, timely news. A free press provides us with the information we need to make personal and professional choices. While the First Amendment allows for freedom of the press, it has been widely accepted that press freedom isn’t absolute, and that there are some limits on what journalists can print. While it is presumed that the truth is always printable, the courts have always held that there must be some form of redress for persons who are defamed in print. While many people know the First Amendment allows for freedom of the press, some may not know that this freedom is not absolute. Reporters, editors, and publishers must ensure that when they print something about someone or broadcast it, they are not defaming that person. Defamation means hurting someone’s good name or reputation by false statements or misrepresentations. Slander refers to verbal defamation. Printed or broadcast defamation is known as libel. History and Evolution of the Freedom of the Press Who was John Peter Zenger? What happened that landed him in trouble with the British Governor? What was the result? Founding fathers referred to this landmark case during their discussions about a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the freedom of the press. Despite the Zenger trial and the First Amendment, Government officials and the press have since had running battles over what can and cannot be published. Government often tries to restrain, control, or drive the press, while the press often tries to gain more access to the government and even to influence it. What did President Adams sign into law in 1798? Why did he sign it? It was against the law to / punishment?: Outcome: Who was Daniel Ellsberg? What did he release to the press (New York Times)? What happened? What was the outcome? What happened in New York Times Company v. Sullivan? What was the outcome? What was the reason behind Court's majority position? Sheppard v. Maxwell – What was the charge? How did the Press taint Sheppard’s name? Outcome? What are steps taken now to prevent this from reoccurring? Freedom of the Press does not give automatic immunity from legal investigation. A newspaper reporter does not have the right to refuse to answer questions from a Grand Jury concerning the identity of a source. Even if the reporter was given the information in confidence, the Supreme Court ruled that such information must be revealed if it is linked to criminal activity. What about school newspapers? What was the connection between The Spectrum and the principal? What were the stories about? What was the Principal’s reason to deny the articles? How did the U.S. Supreme Court rule? What is the Hazelwood Standard? In the summer of 1798, the United States was close to war with France. Many members of the Federalist Party, including President John Adams and Federalist leaders in Congress, not only believed that their Democratic-Republican opponents were pro-French, but that their vocal opposition to administration policies was dangerous to the country’s security. Therefore, to silence (as well as to weaken) the Democratic-Republican party, Congressional Federalists passed four statutes which are collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Three laws were aimed at foreign aliens, who tended to support the Democratic-Republican Party and its leaders: the Naturalization Act, which required that aliens to be residents within the US for 14 instead of 5 years before they could become US citizens. the Alien Act, which granted the President broad powers to deport during peacetime any non-US citizen he deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." the Alien Enemies Act, which permitted the federal government to arrest, deport or imprison any alien belonging to an enemy nation at war with the United States. The final statute was the Sedition Act. This measure aimed to curb public criticism of the Adams administration, especially at the hands of pro-Democratic-Republican newspapers. Passed on July 14, 1798, the Act asserted that to "print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the federal government - including the President himself - was a treasonable crime punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment and/or fines. Although the Adams administration did act upon the alien laws, the Sedition Act was enforced with great energy. Over two dozen pro-Republican newspaper editors were arrested, fined, and imprisoned. Their newspapers, moreover, were shut down. Included among those charged was Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin and editor of the pro-Jeffersonian Philadelphia paper, the Aurora. These efforts to halt political dissent backfired. Many Americans believed the acts unconstitutional and were outraged that newspaper editors had been charged and imprisoned. The acts also led to the passage of Virginia and Kentucky resolutions(1799), written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively. Passed by their state legislatures, these resolves condemned the actions of the Fedealist Congress and asserted that the states had the authority to declare them (and all tyrannical statutes) unconstitutional. The Alien and Sedition Acts also politically weakened the Federalist Party during the election of 1800, especially after the diplomatic crisis with France passed without war. After Thomas Jefferson’s election to the presidency, Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802, while the other statutes were allowed to expire.