160 likes | 385 Views
First Amendment Law. Tinker and Hazelwood (Information courtesy of the First Amendment Center ) TAKE NOTES, AS YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE ASSESSED IN THIS INFORMATION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS. Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). Facts : Several students planned to
E N D
First Amendment Law Tinker and Hazelwood (Information courtesy of the First Amendment Center) TAKE NOTES, AS YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE ASSESSED IN THIS INFORMATION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Facts: Several students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and mourn the dead on all sides. School officials learned of the impending protest and quickly adopted a no-armband rule (even though they allowed students to wear other symbols). The students nonetheless wore the armbands to school. School officials suspended them for violating school policy. The students sued, claiming violation of their First Amendment rights.
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Issue: Whether school officials can censor non-violent student speech without showing that the speech will cause a material and substantial disruption of school educational activities or collide with the rights of others.
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Holding: By a 7-2 vote, the Court held that school officials cannot censor student speech unless school officials reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or collide with the rights of others. Mere apprehension of disturbance or an offense given is not enough.
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Reasoning: Students do not lose their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. School officials’ duties to provide a safe learning environment must be balanced against students’ free-expression rights. School officials may not censor student speech because of an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension." They must reasonably forecast that the student speech will cause a substantial disruption or invade the rights of others. In this case, "the record does not demonstrate any facts which reasonably may have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred."
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Majority: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Justice Abe Fortas)
Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Dissent: This case will help usher in "a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary. . . I wish, therefore, wholly to disclaim any purpose on my part to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students." (Justice Hugo Black)
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Facts: Students produced a school newspaper as part of their journalism class. One issue was to include student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. The principal objected to the stories, believing they were inappropriate for the younger students and unfair to the pregnant students who might be identified from the text of the article. He also believed that the parents of the students quoted in the divorce article should have been given an opportunity to respond. He deleted the articles from the school newspaper. Three students sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights under the Tinker standard.
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Issue: Whether school officials can censor school-sponsored student publications when they believe material is inappropriate for younger students, or for reasons other than the prospect of material and substantial disruption of the educational process.
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding: By a 5-3 vote, the Court held that school officials can censor school-sponsored student publications when they have purposes reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns.
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Reasoning: There is a fundamental difference between private student speech and student speech that occurs in school-sponsored activities. Educators have greater authority to control school-sponsored student speech because the public might reasonably believe such speech bears "the imprimatur of the school” (or that the school accepts it as being ‘good’). Educators "do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." A publication created as part of a class is clearly school-sponsored and a part of the curriculum. The school never adopted a policy whereby the publication simply became a public forum open to any and all views. The school administration thus properly acted as editor of the newspaper.
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Majority: "A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or 'conduct otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order,' or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy." (Justice Byron White)
Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988) Dissent: The dissent argued that the majority erred in making a distinction between student-initiated and school-sponsored speech. The Tinker standard of material and substantial disruption should govern all student free-expression cases. "The case before us aptly illustrates how readily school officials (and courts) can camouflage viewpoint discrimination as the 'mere' protection of students from sensitive topics." (Justice William Brennan)
Student Newspapers and Public Forums In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court determined that a high school newspaper produced as part of a journalism class was not a public forum…The Court wrote: "Hence, school facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have 'by policy or practice' opened those facilities for 'indiscriminate use by the general public,' or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations."6 The majority in Hazelwood also reasoned that because the production of the newspaper was "part of the educational curriculum and a regular classroom activity," it was a nonpublic forum. Since the Hazelwood decision, many courts have continued to defer to the judgment of school officials. As a result, many forms of censorship that had previously been unacceptable under the Tinker standard of expression have been upheld.
What does this mean for you? Shenendehowa’s Board Policy School Newspaper and Student Publications - Newspaper staff members, contributors, or editors and students have a responsibility to observe the rules for responsible journalism and, in particular, to refrain from libel and obscenity. The school has the right to halt the distribution of materials that would materially and substantially interrupt the educational process or intrude upon the rights of others. Students may take photographs, and make audio/visual recordings with prior permission of the Principal or adult supervisor in charge of activity or classroom for news or documentary purposes as long as they do not materially and substantially interrupt the educative process or intrude upon the rights of others. Students who are not members of the newspaper staff may have their work submitted and considered for publication in the school newspaper, particularly in those instances where non-editorial staff opinions differ from those of the editor.
Forums of Expression Open Public Forum • parks, sidewalks, etc. (little to no restrictions) Limited Public Forum • designated facilities (by government) Non-public Forum (DIMINISHED RIGHTS) • MANY schools; generally determined by how student publications operate • Curricular or extra-curricular? • Students dictate content or advisors do? • Use of school resources or independently operated/financed?