So I’m driving with my cousin Jad tonight. And well we are driving behind this woman who makes a decision. She pulls over, there is a sheriff near her, and tells the sheriff that Jad and I have been harassing her the whole car ride. That we have been honking at her. This made me stop and think.
People value this "freedom of speech" right? If we value it so much why do we constantly abuse it? The government takes away rights at certain times and well that is how it is but now that I think... they may have their reasons. People blatantly lie every day and we get upset when we believe the government doesn't take the people seriously?
As an Arab I have had the "freedom of speech" used on me many times. Day in and day out it seems that because I’m Arab I have to be plotting to blow something up. One day someone told that to me and I asked... why did you just say that? Their response. "It's freedom of speech."
This phrase echoes through the halls of the capitol building and should be reiterated through sea to shining sea. But people seem to now have forgotten what it has really meant. I have heard many people say mean things just because they are "exercising" their freedom of speech and it is just getting old.
Coming from a family that has not been raised here, the freedom of speech is never a thing we have taken for granted. But coming from many people that have always lived here? It has become a joke.
So I challenge all of you, whoever may read this blog, to stop using that phrase unless it is to express grievances against the government. The freedom was never intended to harass people, to accept the idea of lying, or to impede on the beliefs/ heritage of anyone. As a country our freedom of speech is something we must hold on, something to be proud of. Not a freedom to be abused.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Guilty for saying not guilty
In December 11th news, a Pennsylvania judge cleared four former Pittsburgh-area high school students of harassment for wearing T-shirts with the words "Not Guilty" to school.
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.
Siyang Liu
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.
Siyang Liu
Protecting Your Image, or Making It Worse?
Two writers for “The Breeze” student publication were charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and non-compliance at Hillside Hall, an on-campus dormitory of James Madison University , by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The writers simply wanted to interview some students about a story that had been going around involving a “peeping Tom”. It is their right to pursue this information within legal boundaries
The two journalists simply went to the residence hall to talk to students about the “peeping Tom” incident that had occurred recently. The journalists followed the necessary guidelines so that they would be allowed into the hall and could continue their investigation within the required rules of the university residence hall manual.
One of the interviewers questioned the students outside of the hall, and then requested that they accompany her inside. Later, a resident advisor asked the reporter to leave. The interviewer then brought in her partner, and eventually a resident they were familiar with to clear up any misunderstandings, but the residence hall director still threatened to call the police.
This is a very blatant disregard for freedom of the press. The student journalists behaved within the rules and boundaries set by the Resident Advisors of the dormitory. The RAs had no right to threaten the students with a police call. The reporters were not doing anything wrong and they were following the rules of the residency hall manual.
The RA had no reason to crack down on the students for conducting interviews.
The RA was attempting to censor the journalists to prevent the dormitory from looking bad, so they sought to scare the students away with an unjustified threat of incarceration. This is a major violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of the press.
Nick Hobbs
The two journalists simply went to the residence hall to talk to students about the “peeping Tom” incident that had occurred recently. The journalists followed the necessary guidelines so that they would be allowed into the hall and could continue their investigation within the required rules of the university residence hall manual.
One of the interviewers questioned the students outside of the hall, and then requested that they accompany her inside. Later, a resident advisor asked the reporter to leave. The interviewer then brought in her partner, and eventually a resident they were familiar with to clear up any misunderstandings, but the residence hall director still threatened to call the police.
This is a very blatant disregard for freedom of the press. The student journalists behaved within the rules and boundaries set by the Resident Advisors of the dormitory. The RAs had no right to threaten the students with a police call. The reporters were not doing anything wrong and they were following the rules of the residency hall manual.
The RA had no reason to crack down on the students for conducting interviews.
The RA was attempting to censor the journalists to prevent the dormitory from looking bad, so they sought to scare the students away with an unjustified threat of incarceration. This is a major violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of the press.
Nick Hobbs
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Don't Sugar-Coat It
Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer
McPherson High School’s staff at The High Life in Kansas wrote an article about two pregnant teenagers at the school. The newspaper’s advisor, Todd Brittingham, cut the story from the second issue of The High Life. He assumed that he had the right to remove articles that he felt were too controversial. The issue came out with a blank center spread that was initially meant for the story about the two girls.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Wentling produced a statement to be published in the third issue explaining the blank spread and emphasizing the rights of student journalists.
“I respect the administration’s decision to withdraw the content of the page from the newspaper, however…a free student press is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy…we have an obligation to serve as a voice for the student body” said Wentling.
The High Life wanted to produce an article that dealt with issues regarding their student body. They gave a voice to two teenage girls who were going through something very difficult and very personal. This was not an easy thing to talk about, read about, or write about. If the press only covered sugar-coated truths, the world would be a very dark and ignorant place.
Brittingham is an example of the kind of authority figure that has the power to take control of the press without any questions being asked. High school journalists are faced with this issue everyday. Unlike independent papers, the school newspaper will always be in the shadow of the administration. It is the staff’s responsibility to not allow this to be a hindrance.
In order for a high school newspaper to be successful, the students involved need to be in control of their own rights. It is crucial that they do not lose their voice. The representation of the student body is very important and the opportunity to give a voice to any group of people should never be wasted.
Fused staff writer
McPherson High School’s staff at The High Life in Kansas wrote an article about two pregnant teenagers at the school. The newspaper’s advisor, Todd Brittingham, cut the story from the second issue of The High Life. He assumed that he had the right to remove articles that he felt were too controversial. The issue came out with a blank center spread that was initially meant for the story about the two girls.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Wentling produced a statement to be published in the third issue explaining the blank spread and emphasizing the rights of student journalists.
“I respect the administration’s decision to withdraw the content of the page from the newspaper, however…a free student press is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy…we have an obligation to serve as a voice for the student body” said Wentling.
The High Life wanted to produce an article that dealt with issues regarding their student body. They gave a voice to two teenage girls who were going through something very difficult and very personal. This was not an easy thing to talk about, read about, or write about. If the press only covered sugar-coated truths, the world would be a very dark and ignorant place.
Brittingham is an example of the kind of authority figure that has the power to take control of the press without any questions being asked. High school journalists are faced with this issue everyday. Unlike independent papers, the school newspaper will always be in the shadow of the administration. It is the staff’s responsibility to not allow this to be a hindrance.
In order for a high school newspaper to be successful, the students involved need to be in control of their own rights. It is crucial that they do not lose their voice. The representation of the student body is very important and the opportunity to give a voice to any group of people should never be wasted.
Photos of Shirtless males cut from yearbook by principal's orders
The principle of Chattooga High School in Summerville Georgia, had ordered four pages to be cut out of the 2009 yearbook, because there were photographs of shirtless males playing basketball that he said were inappropriate.
When I first read this I was thinking did they really pull four pages out of a yearbook because some guys didn’t have shirts on??
“She looked at (the book), saw the pictures, brought it to my attention and removed them,” Lenderman said, speaking on behalf of the adviser. “They did not represent the way we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself. If it was my son or daughter, it would not be something I would want in there. This is a course for the students.”
The photos of the men were part of a “summer activities” spread for the student life section. It was routinely hard to get the photos; they need to be taken over the summer when school is not in session. The student that took these was able to take pictures of his classmates playing basketball in a church gym. “I was with them playing basketball,” Barker said. “I had the camera with me so I just started taking pictures.”
I would have done the same thing if I was at an open gym for gymnastics and had my camera I would start taking photos to.
Barker who took the photos was upset so he decided to ask why they removed the photos. The new yearbook advisor told him that in one of the photos a male student was smiling and holding a cell phone and dollar bills, which had drug-related implications.
The page removal caused a number of complaints; the yearbook staff got a number of e-mails from angry students. It wasn’t the yearbook’s fault that the photos got pulled, so the student’s shouldn’t be upset with them.
“Everyone who’s seen them says there is nothing offensive here,” Perry said. “If you look back at all the yearbooks over the years, we’ve always had shirtless boys in them. And this year’s book also had some pictures from the chorus musical, and there were some shirtless boys in that play, and their pictures were in the yearbook.” Perry scanned all four of the missing photos of the book and posted them on his Facebook account for his students to see.
I think the whole thing was really dumb. I do not get how shirtless guys holding a cell phone and dollar bills would implicate drugs in any way. If they didn’t want shirtless males in the yearbook maybe they should have said something before hand, so they would know not to take shirtless photos. I think if they let the musical have a photo with a shirtless guy they should let some guy’s hanging out in the summer playing basketball. It would be just like if the yearbook staff took photos of the school basketball team practicing, or if they got photos of the gym class when they did a swimming lesson. I think it was a poorly made choice, especially for the photographer. He worked hard trying to get photos during the summer so that hey students at the school will have a nice yearbook. I think this is a terrible thing that happened and they should try and avoid it next time, maybe have better communication with the yearbook staff because they are the ones doing all the work.
Lindsay McKnight
When I first read this I was thinking did they really pull four pages out of a yearbook because some guys didn’t have shirts on??
“She looked at (the book), saw the pictures, brought it to my attention and removed them,” Lenderman said, speaking on behalf of the adviser. “They did not represent the way we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself. If it was my son or daughter, it would not be something I would want in there. This is a course for the students.”
The photos of the men were part of a “summer activities” spread for the student life section. It was routinely hard to get the photos; they need to be taken over the summer when school is not in session. The student that took these was able to take pictures of his classmates playing basketball in a church gym. “I was with them playing basketball,” Barker said. “I had the camera with me so I just started taking pictures.”
I would have done the same thing if I was at an open gym for gymnastics and had my camera I would start taking photos to.
Barker who took the photos was upset so he decided to ask why they removed the photos. The new yearbook advisor told him that in one of the photos a male student was smiling and holding a cell phone and dollar bills, which had drug-related implications.
The page removal caused a number of complaints; the yearbook staff got a number of e-mails from angry students. It wasn’t the yearbook’s fault that the photos got pulled, so the student’s shouldn’t be upset with them.
“Everyone who’s seen them says there is nothing offensive here,” Perry said. “If you look back at all the yearbooks over the years, we’ve always had shirtless boys in them. And this year’s book also had some pictures from the chorus musical, and there were some shirtless boys in that play, and their pictures were in the yearbook.” Perry scanned all four of the missing photos of the book and posted them on his Facebook account for his students to see.
I think the whole thing was really dumb. I do not get how shirtless guys holding a cell phone and dollar bills would implicate drugs in any way. If they didn’t want shirtless males in the yearbook maybe they should have said something before hand, so they would know not to take shirtless photos. I think if they let the musical have a photo with a shirtless guy they should let some guy’s hanging out in the summer playing basketball. It would be just like if the yearbook staff took photos of the school basketball team practicing, or if they got photos of the gym class when they did a swimming lesson. I think it was a poorly made choice, especially for the photographer. He worked hard trying to get photos during the summer so that hey students at the school will have a nice yearbook. I think this is a terrible thing that happened and they should try and avoid it next time, maybe have better communication with the yearbook staff because they are the ones doing all the work.
Lindsay McKnight
Communication is Key
By Naama Levy
About two months ago, a student at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, Ohio committed suicide. The student newspaper, The Stowhion was planning on printing an obituary and a photo of the student, as well as a letter sent from the student’s mother to the other students. Doesn’t sound like a very complicated situation; after all it’s a simple routine that newspapers do all the time.
However, a few days before printing, it suddenly seemed necessary to the school principal (who had been okay with this at first) that the obituary and photo be removed from the newspaper. She did not oppose to the letter from the mother, but insisted that the other elements will not be published.
The Stowhion’s advisor then contacted staff members and students to ask if they had anything else they’d like to include in the paper about the victim. Less than 30 minutes later, Schure objected to this too, sending out a letter saying, “We are not doing this”. She said, “I understand that it’s censorship and I’m OK with that.”
This made no sense to the newspaper editor-in-chief, who said that in 2005, the newspaper ran two pages on student suicides with no pressure from the administration, and that The Stowhion has been a public forum for years.
This case is one of many where journalists have been censored and silenced without justified reasons. The principal might argue otherwise, but I think she simply didn’t know what to do and decided the safe way to go would be to forbid the paper to publish the obituary, the photo, and anything other people would send.
The principal was probably afraid because suicides are a touchy subject, so she disregarded the fact that it could bee seen as disrespectful not to run the obituary and the photo. Whatever her thought process was, this is not an acceptable explanation as to why she so blatantly restricted the newspaper from activating its freedom of press.
Even if the principal had reasons to justify the censorship, she lacked the decency to communicate with the newspaper staff and explain her position. Administrators and adults in general sometimes don’t show the right respect for young journalists. A newspaper is one of the few, if not the only place in a high school where teenagers cooperate in a work environment very similar to having a real job, which requires maturity and dedication and comprises of many responsibilities. The principal at Stow-Munroe Falls failed to recognize this and treated the students as kids instead of adults, causing anger and confusion. Although the students might have disagreed with the principal, providing an explanation was the least she could do. Communication is essential in any matter concerning Freedom of Press rights and can eliminate hostility that will only create more conflicts in the future.
Often conflicts associated with freedom of the press, especially at the high school level, are the result of fear of bad reputation and miscommunication. When a sensitive subject comes up, authorities sometimes panic because they don’t know how to deal with it. The most important thing in that situation is communication.
About two months ago, a student at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, Ohio committed suicide. The student newspaper, The Stowhion was planning on printing an obituary and a photo of the student, as well as a letter sent from the student’s mother to the other students. Doesn’t sound like a very complicated situation; after all it’s a simple routine that newspapers do all the time.
However, a few days before printing, it suddenly seemed necessary to the school principal (who had been okay with this at first) that the obituary and photo be removed from the newspaper. She did not oppose to the letter from the mother, but insisted that the other elements will not be published.
The Stowhion’s advisor then contacted staff members and students to ask if they had anything else they’d like to include in the paper about the victim. Less than 30 minutes later, Schure objected to this too, sending out a letter saying, “We are not doing this”. She said, “I understand that it’s censorship and I’m OK with that.”
This made no sense to the newspaper editor-in-chief, who said that in 2005, the newspaper ran two pages on student suicides with no pressure from the administration, and that The Stowhion has been a public forum for years.
This case is one of many where journalists have been censored and silenced without justified reasons. The principal might argue otherwise, but I think she simply didn’t know what to do and decided the safe way to go would be to forbid the paper to publish the obituary, the photo, and anything other people would send.
The principal was probably afraid because suicides are a touchy subject, so she disregarded the fact that it could bee seen as disrespectful not to run the obituary and the photo. Whatever her thought process was, this is not an acceptable explanation as to why she so blatantly restricted the newspaper from activating its freedom of press.
Even if the principal had reasons to justify the censorship, she lacked the decency to communicate with the newspaper staff and explain her position. Administrators and adults in general sometimes don’t show the right respect for young journalists. A newspaper is one of the few, if not the only place in a high school where teenagers cooperate in a work environment very similar to having a real job, which requires maturity and dedication and comprises of many responsibilities. The principal at Stow-Munroe Falls failed to recognize this and treated the students as kids instead of adults, causing anger and confusion. Although the students might have disagreed with the principal, providing an explanation was the least she could do. Communication is essential in any matter concerning Freedom of Press rights and can eliminate hostility that will only create more conflicts in the future.
Often conflicts associated with freedom of the press, especially at the high school level, are the result of fear of bad reputation and miscommunication. When a sensitive subject comes up, authorities sometimes panic because they don’t know how to deal with it. The most important thing in that situation is communication.
For "Meeps" Sake
By Jessi Rannochio
A news channel reported one night last week that Danvers High School parents were all called because students were using the word “meep” and the school wanted to ban the word because they believed it was used in vulgar content.
“It has nothing to do with the word,” Principal Thomas Murray said. “It has to do with the conduct of the students. We wouldn’t just ban a word just to ban a word.”
Murray didn’t continue to say what content the student were using it in but he did say that the kids weren’t using the word to harass or bully other students. He justified the reason for calling the parents as “were an attempt to stop some sort of “disruption” being planned on Facebook.” This Facebook “disruption” never actually occurred though.
The word “Meep” is a sound that Beaker uses on The Muppet Show. It’s not a bad word, its not a vulgar term, so why ban it?
This is the first question I asked myself and the only reason I can think of is that they do it because they can.
When you give someone the power of a principal or a “top dog” then sometimes they get a big head and think they can do what they want. Banning the word “Meep” takes away the student freedom of speech. They should have the right to say “Meep” when ever they want.
DHS newspaper interviews Sophomore Melanie Crane referring to what “Meep” means and she states “No one really knows.”
“Meep” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “the most versatile word in the English language, or in fact any language” so why ban it?
It really frustrates me when authority takes away minors rights because at this point in our life we just have to take it and accept what they’re saying because we are minors, but I think something need to change and we should be able to always be able to fight back for ourselves. Clearly that’s not always the case.
A news channel reported one night last week that Danvers High School parents were all called because students were using the word “meep” and the school wanted to ban the word because they believed it was used in vulgar content.
“It has nothing to do with the word,” Principal Thomas Murray said. “It has to do with the conduct of the students. We wouldn’t just ban a word just to ban a word.”
Murray didn’t continue to say what content the student were using it in but he did say that the kids weren’t using the word to harass or bully other students. He justified the reason for calling the parents as “were an attempt to stop some sort of “disruption” being planned on Facebook.” This Facebook “disruption” never actually occurred though.
The word “Meep” is a sound that Beaker uses on The Muppet Show. It’s not a bad word, its not a vulgar term, so why ban it?
This is the first question I asked myself and the only reason I can think of is that they do it because they can.
When you give someone the power of a principal or a “top dog” then sometimes they get a big head and think they can do what they want. Banning the word “Meep” takes away the student freedom of speech. They should have the right to say “Meep” when ever they want.
DHS newspaper interviews Sophomore Melanie Crane referring to what “Meep” means and she states “No one really knows.”
“Meep” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “the most versatile word in the English language, or in fact any language” so why ban it?
It really frustrates me when authority takes away minors rights because at this point in our life we just have to take it and accept what they’re saying because we are minors, but I think something need to change and we should be able to always be able to fight back for ourselves. Clearly that’s not always the case.
Freedom
November 25
Illinois—Students of Lincolnshire’s Stevenson High School were restricted from printing their November 20th issue. Stevenson’s administration prevented distribution of the issue due to three articles they deemed not “fit to print.” Three articles, one on drug use, one on teen pregnancy, and one on shoplifting were forbidden from being included in the November issue of The Statesman.
“This is nothing but a power game of administrators trying to ‘show the kids whose boss’,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.
Pamela Selman, editor-in-chief of The Statesman, said that if she were to allow a prior review of the paper to the administration, they would require her name who her anonymous sources were. Selman granted anonymity to sources in the article about drug abuse to encourage students to speak up about what was going on around them.
Stevenson High School’s administration is jeopardizing student’s first amendment rights. By preventing the publication of an issue, the administration is stripping students of their right to free speech. This is clearly a breach of our nation’s most important rights.
“It’s truly sad that Stevenson High School is run by people who operate under the principle of ‘what’s the worst thing we can do to our students and get away with it under the law,’ rather than what’s best for the student’s education,” said LoMonte.
The school claims to have not denied the publication of the issue on the grounds of damaging their reputation. If not for this reason, then why would the school be so intent on cancelling the issue? It is clear that Stevenson High School’s administration was intent on barring distribution of The Statesman due to concerns over how the public would receive the articles within.
The right to free speech is always in effect. It is a right that is unconditional. It is a crime that Stevenson’s administration is attempting to thwart the rights of students to freely speak their mind.
--Michael Moates
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ten-year-old refuses to stand for pledge
Written by: William Liao
Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.
With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.
As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.
So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.
I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.
Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.
The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.
Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.
With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.
As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.
So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.
I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.
Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.
The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
First Amendment Ignored by Stevenson High School Administration
by Belle Kim
In yet another blatant disregard of the First Amendment by a school administration, staff members of the Stevenson High School student newspaper Statesmen were forced to publish an issue composed of only administration-approved content.
The issue originated when Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selmon submitted for prior review a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts. Because the number of student leaders who had broken the contract of no-drugs-or-alcohol appeared to have greatly increased, the topic had been deemed newsworthy. However, it would also be a topic that students would be reluctant to speak about. Thus, the reporter and editor granted their sources anonymity.
The school administration refused to allow the publication of the story, unless the sources were named. When the staff members chose to remove the article and distribute the issue with a blank front page, the administrative review board refused to allow the issue to print with the blank space, and also censored two other stories in the newspaper covering teen pregnancy and shoplifting. In protest, the staff requested to remove their bylines from the published stories and to include an editor's note explaining the circumstances under which the article was published. Both requests were denied. These students are now being represented by Chicago attorney Gabriel Fuentes through the SPLC's volunteer attorney referral network.
It seems ridiculous that the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is only applicable in the real word and not in schools. The experiences that we have in high school supposed to prepare us for the real world. And in the real world, in the United States, a journalist has a right to cover newsworthy stories without fear of censorship or persecution from the government.
Shouldn't this right apply to the journalists of Stevenson High School, as well?
The school administration failed to do its job: to promote education and to act for the general welfare of the students. The staff of the newspaper had every right to publish the article, and the student body had every right to know the information that went into the paper.
Instead, the administration overlooked its students' rights, deeming that a higher priority would be to protect the school reputation by pulling the issue. But by choosing to do so, the administration only managed to bring more negative attention to itself and to Stevenson High School than could ever have been placed upon them, had the issue been published.
What, really, is the point of censorship? What does it accomplish? What does it show?
Only one answer can be found to these questions: that narrow-minded school administrators are willing to blatantly ignore the freedom of speech and press for its students.
In yet another blatant disregard of the First Amendment by a school administration, staff members of the Stevenson High School student newspaper Statesmen were forced to publish an issue composed of only administration-approved content.
The issue originated when Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selmon submitted for prior review a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts. Because the number of student leaders who had broken the contract of no-drugs-or-alcohol appeared to have greatly increased, the topic had been deemed newsworthy. However, it would also be a topic that students would be reluctant to speak about. Thus, the reporter and editor granted their sources anonymity.
The school administration refused to allow the publication of the story, unless the sources were named. When the staff members chose to remove the article and distribute the issue with a blank front page, the administrative review board refused to allow the issue to print with the blank space, and also censored two other stories in the newspaper covering teen pregnancy and shoplifting. In protest, the staff requested to remove their bylines from the published stories and to include an editor's note explaining the circumstances under which the article was published. Both requests were denied. These students are now being represented by Chicago attorney Gabriel Fuentes through the SPLC's volunteer attorney referral network.
It seems ridiculous that the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is only applicable in the real word and not in schools. The experiences that we have in high school supposed to prepare us for the real world. And in the real world, in the United States, a journalist has a right to cover newsworthy stories without fear of censorship or persecution from the government.
Shouldn't this right apply to the journalists of Stevenson High School, as well?
The school administration failed to do its job: to promote education and to act for the general welfare of the students. The staff of the newspaper had every right to publish the article, and the student body had every right to know the information that went into the paper.
Instead, the administration overlooked its students' rights, deeming that a higher priority would be to protect the school reputation by pulling the issue. But by choosing to do so, the administration only managed to bring more negative attention to itself and to Stevenson High School than could ever have been placed upon them, had the issue been published.
What, really, is the point of censorship? What does it accomplish? What does it show?
Only one answer can be found to these questions: that narrow-minded school administrators are willing to blatantly ignore the freedom of speech and press for its students.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tiger Woods Can't Hide From The Truth
By Caitlin McCoy
There was much suspicion regarding the incident of Tiger Woods. At 2:25 a.m. Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. What dragged out this issue for so long is the fact that Woods or his wife, Elin Woods, would not give officers any information. Another reason why this dilemma couldn’t be dropped is because he is a celebrity; one that does not have a bad record. Because of this, investigators want to find the juicy information behind this even more.
Before the definite news came out that Woods had an affair, reporters brainstormed different scenarios of what might have happened. They used the clues, such as the impact of the car to the tree and fire hydrant, to put together a possible story of what went on early that morning. One idea that was conjured up was that Woods backed up and hit a tree to try to escape from his wife who was attacking him (maybe with a golf club) because she was mad at him.
Reporters can only investigate this case to a certain extent. Because he is a celebrity, reporters tend to keep the incident on high radar, maybe higher than is needed. At the same time, Woods would not share any information at first. He has his right to say nothing to reporters. At the same time, he has to face the fact that information will get out. This is because reporters have a right to look into the disagreement Woods and his wife had.
These two forces battling each other, one to keep information from getting out, and the other, trying to get as much information as possible, bring about issues of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The reporters must keep their boundaries and Woods needs to accept that information will get out.
There was much suspicion regarding the incident of Tiger Woods. At 2:25 a.m. Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. What dragged out this issue for so long is the fact that Woods or his wife, Elin Woods, would not give officers any information. Another reason why this dilemma couldn’t be dropped is because he is a celebrity; one that does not have a bad record. Because of this, investigators want to find the juicy information behind this even more.
Before the definite news came out that Woods had an affair, reporters brainstormed different scenarios of what might have happened. They used the clues, such as the impact of the car to the tree and fire hydrant, to put together a possible story of what went on early that morning. One idea that was conjured up was that Woods backed up and hit a tree to try to escape from his wife who was attacking him (maybe with a golf club) because she was mad at him.
Reporters can only investigate this case to a certain extent. Because he is a celebrity, reporters tend to keep the incident on high radar, maybe higher than is needed. At the same time, Woods would not share any information at first. He has his right to say nothing to reporters. At the same time, he has to face the fact that information will get out. This is because reporters have a right to look into the disagreement Woods and his wife had.
These two forces battling each other, one to keep information from getting out, and the other, trying to get as much information as possible, bring about issues of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The reporters must keep their boundaries and Woods needs to accept that information will get out.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Assembly: the First Amendment's Forgotten Right
by Victoria Ison
“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government…”
– First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
All the other rights listed in this famous clause are separated by semicolons, or at least by the word “or,” designating them as separate entities worth protecting.
This could have contributed to the confusion in the early nineteenth century. While various branches of the government were still figuring out what the Constitution and its expanding Bill of Rights meant in practical application, the wording of the first amendment in regards to the right of assembly was questioned.
Were the rights of assembly and petition separate? Or was assembly only guaranteed if it came about in the course of petitioning? The former was ultimately decided upon by the Supreme Court and various lesser courts of the nation. Today citizens of the United States understand (or they should) that they have the right to assemble as they please, so long as they do so peaceably.
It’s surprising how truly basic this right to assemble is. It goes hand in hand with religious freedom; the right to practice a belief would be futile for many if they didn’t also have the right to commune with others of the same beliefs.
It’s surprising how truly basic this right to assemble is. It goes hand in hand with religious freedom; the right to practice a belief would be futile for many if they didn’t also have the right to commune with others of the same beliefs.
More commonly, we think of the right to assemble in terms of strikes and protests. Both are essential ways of protecting other freedoms: think labor unions.
Especially in the decades before webcams and online chatting were invented, the significance of the right to assemble together can not be understated. Even today, the ability to talk face to face with another supporter of a cause can boost morale and inspire reformers in a way that technological communication can not.
The right to assemble is the right to unite in a common cause. It is an incredibly easy right to take for granted, but it is a right that can not long be forgotten.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Shirtless Guys Mean No Freedom of Press
By Belle Kim, feature editor of Fused
In an article called “Photos of shirtless males cut from yearbooks on principal’s orders,” SPLC staff writer Joanna Brenner discusses an unwarranted censorship and blatant disregard of the freedom of speech and press that took place in Chatooga High school, Summerville. The new adviser of Chatooga’s yearbook brought to the attention of the principal four pages of a yearbook complied the year before under a different adviser, which contained photographs of shirtless boys playing basketball. After discussing these photos with the first-year principal Jimmy Lenderman, she cut the pages out of each copy of the yearbook that had already been bought by staff and students.
Tyler Barker, the photographer who had taken the pictures that were cut, confronted the adviser, who told him that one of the photos had drug-related implications. The photo showed a smiling male student holding a cell phone and money. To the adviser, that apparently held drug-related implications.
The censorship of those photos led to many complaints from students, who posted their thoughts on facebook and emailed former adviser Dr. Alan Perry. Perry was scandalized that the students’ first amendment rights had been so blatantly ignored and taken away. He remarked that there hadn’t been anything offensive about the cut photos at all, and that many yearbooks from the past had pictures of shirtless boys in it; but in all of his 27 years as an adviser, he had never had censorship problems, nor submitted any page to the administration. Perry put up scanned images of the pages that were cut out on facebook so that students could access them.
Worrying that her position might be threatened, or wanting to look good to the adminstration, the new yearbook adviser actually collaborated with the principal, instead of protecting the freedom of press. She took away the first amendment rights of students at the high school. Lenderman completely supported her and in that way showed that he did not care about preserving the rights of his students. He said that the photos “did not represent the way that we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself,” and thus felt completely justified in cutting out those pages that students had labored over.
There are definitely many things that can pose a threat to the good standing of a school.
A few pictures of shirtless high school guys aren't one of them.
Teenagers will be teenagers. Having a few pictures of high school students shirtless wouldn't send across a general message that the school encourages nudity. It wasn't as if the students were being shirtless to be obscene; they were playing basketball and were trying to cool off.
If the school administration were given the power to suppress anything that they thought could potentially jeopardize their school, there would be nothing in their yearbooks.
Nothing.
What did repressing the photos accomplish?
Nothing.
By censoring those pictures, the principal managed to do the very thing that he had been trying to prevent. His actions brought upon more attention to the pictures than could ever have been placed upon them, had they been published uncensored.
In an article called “Photos of shirtless males cut from yearbooks on principal’s orders,” SPLC staff writer Joanna Brenner discusses an unwarranted censorship and blatant disregard of the freedom of speech and press that took place in Chatooga High school, Summerville. The new adviser of Chatooga’s yearbook brought to the attention of the principal four pages of a yearbook complied the year before under a different adviser, which contained photographs of shirtless boys playing basketball. After discussing these photos with the first-year principal Jimmy Lenderman, she cut the pages out of each copy of the yearbook that had already been bought by staff and students.
Tyler Barker, the photographer who had taken the pictures that were cut, confronted the adviser, who told him that one of the photos had drug-related implications. The photo showed a smiling male student holding a cell phone and money. To the adviser, that apparently held drug-related implications.
The censorship of those photos led to many complaints from students, who posted their thoughts on facebook and emailed former adviser Dr. Alan Perry. Perry was scandalized that the students’ first amendment rights had been so blatantly ignored and taken away. He remarked that there hadn’t been anything offensive about the cut photos at all, and that many yearbooks from the past had pictures of shirtless boys in it; but in all of his 27 years as an adviser, he had never had censorship problems, nor submitted any page to the administration. Perry put up scanned images of the pages that were cut out on facebook so that students could access them.
Worrying that her position might be threatened, or wanting to look good to the adminstration, the new yearbook adviser actually collaborated with the principal, instead of protecting the freedom of press. She took away the first amendment rights of students at the high school. Lenderman completely supported her and in that way showed that he did not care about preserving the rights of his students. He said that the photos “did not represent the way that we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself,” and thus felt completely justified in cutting out those pages that students had labored over.
There are definitely many things that can pose a threat to the good standing of a school.
A few pictures of shirtless high school guys aren't one of them.
Teenagers will be teenagers. Having a few pictures of high school students shirtless wouldn't send across a general message that the school encourages nudity. It wasn't as if the students were being shirtless to be obscene; they were playing basketball and were trying to cool off.
If the school administration were given the power to suppress anything that they thought could potentially jeopardize their school, there would be nothing in their yearbooks.
Nothing.
What did repressing the photos accomplish?
Nothing.
By censoring those pictures, the principal managed to do the very thing that he had been trying to prevent. His actions brought upon more attention to the pictures than could ever have been placed upon them, had they been published uncensored.
So Much For Freedom of Press
In Summerville, Georgia, students' rights are being threatened. Recently Chatooga High School principal Jim Lenderman decided to cut four pages of the 2009 yearbook because of photos of some boys playing basketball shirtless. Lenderman deemed these photos inappropriate and now the pages containing said photos are being cut from production, outraging students.
While the new adviser was checking the yearbook produced under another adviser, she decided she did not want the pictures in the yearbook, so she took them to the principal, who ordered their removal before yearbook distribution.
These photos were part of a summer spread in the student life section. The student that took the photos, Tyler Barker, was upset with the decision, so he confronted their new adviser. The new adviser retorted with the fact that there were “drug dealing” implications found in a young man holding up his phone and money.
Dr. Alan Perry, Chatooga's former adviser commented, “I’m very disappointed with the decision to mutilate a wonderful yearbook — a decision that was completely unnecessary. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book.”
MCCSC's Publications' Policy states, “Should the advisor feel that a story or picture violates the provisions of Section I or Section II, paragraph 2 of this regulation, the advisor will make the decision not to publish the material in question. The student reporter or editor will have the right to appear under procedures outlined in Section IV. In circumstances where the student editor feels that an article, drawing or photograph should not be published, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the appropriate faculty advisor. Should the advisor agree with the student editor, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the school’s Editorial Board.”
Schools that have to have to have their publications pre-approved by the administration have been faced with a threat to their first amendment right of “freedom of press” and as a student publication, that could be a very damaging thing. For Chatooga's students, it cost them pages in their yearbook, all their hard work on the spreads, which is not easy, and students memories.
This should be an reminder to student publications everywhere that don't have overbearing vision on their publications of just how how lucky they are.
By: Whitney Taylor
While the new adviser was checking the yearbook produced under another adviser, she decided she did not want the pictures in the yearbook, so she took them to the principal, who ordered their removal before yearbook distribution.
These photos were part of a summer spread in the student life section. The student that took the photos, Tyler Barker, was upset with the decision, so he confronted their new adviser. The new adviser retorted with the fact that there were “drug dealing” implications found in a young man holding up his phone and money.
Dr. Alan Perry, Chatooga's former adviser commented, “I’m very disappointed with the decision to mutilate a wonderful yearbook — a decision that was completely unnecessary. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book.”
MCCSC's Publications' Policy states, “Should the advisor feel that a story or picture violates the provisions of Section I or Section II, paragraph 2 of this regulation, the advisor will make the decision not to publish the material in question. The student reporter or editor will have the right to appear under procedures outlined in Section IV. In circumstances where the student editor feels that an article, drawing or photograph should not be published, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the appropriate faculty advisor. Should the advisor agree with the student editor, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the school’s Editorial Board.”
Schools that have to have to have their publications pre-approved by the administration have been faced with a threat to their first amendment right of “freedom of press” and as a student publication, that could be a very damaging thing. For Chatooga's students, it cost them pages in their yearbook, all their hard work on the spreads, which is not easy, and students memories.
This should be an reminder to student publications everywhere that don't have overbearing vision on their publications of just how how lucky they are.
By: Whitney Taylor
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A New "Porn Policy" Violates Our Freedom of Speech
Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer
Last March a "XXX" film titled "Pirates II; Stagnetti's Revenge" was shown on the University of Maryland campus. As soon as the University received word of the screening, Maryland state senator Andy Harris was notified. He threatened to withhold funds from the school if similar screenings continued. Harris asked the state Board of Regents to create a policy that would require any screening on campus to have an educational component.
The students had an opportunity to give their opinion on the matter on October 13, at a forum held by the Student Government Association, or SGA. The SGA president and a member of the Board of Regents listened to concerned students and answered their questions. The School's Board of Regents plans to vote on a new "porn policy" this month, restricting these kinds of un-educational films to be shown on campus.
The students are concerned by what could happen if state legislature becomes involved in what forms of speech are or are not allowed on their campus. The government is threatening to take money away from the school, attempting to restrict the viewing rights of legal adults. This could be seen as a small and seemingly insignificant action taken to protect the reputation of the university, when in reality this new policy is a violation of one our basic and inalienable rights. The subject matter of the film is ultimately irrelevant. It is legal for students 18 and older to view the film. If we allow the government to violate these rights, even infinitesimally, we are sending the message that we won't fight these kinds of decisions.
Our first amendment rights are granted without question, but what good are inviolable rights if you don't utilize them? You may spend thousands of dollars on a new weight-lifting machine, but you don't get any stronger until you pick up the weight and begin to work at it. We can't be oblivious to the rights that we are granted. We have to acknowledge these rights and exercise them or they will disappear. As soon as we succumb to this kind of government involvement, we lose our basic freedoms.
Fused staff writer
Last March a "XXX" film titled "Pirates II; Stagnetti's Revenge" was shown on the University of Maryland campus. As soon as the University received word of the screening, Maryland state senator Andy Harris was notified. He threatened to withhold funds from the school if similar screenings continued. Harris asked the state Board of Regents to create a policy that would require any screening on campus to have an educational component.
The students had an opportunity to give their opinion on the matter on October 13, at a forum held by the Student Government Association, or SGA. The SGA president and a member of the Board of Regents listened to concerned students and answered their questions. The School's Board of Regents plans to vote on a new "porn policy" this month, restricting these kinds of un-educational films to be shown on campus.
The students are concerned by what could happen if state legislature becomes involved in what forms of speech are or are not allowed on their campus. The government is threatening to take money away from the school, attempting to restrict the viewing rights of legal adults. This could be seen as a small and seemingly insignificant action taken to protect the reputation of the university, when in reality this new policy is a violation of one our basic and inalienable rights. The subject matter of the film is ultimately irrelevant. It is legal for students 18 and older to view the film. If we allow the government to violate these rights, even infinitesimally, we are sending the message that we won't fight these kinds of decisions.
Our first amendment rights are granted without question, but what good are inviolable rights if you don't utilize them? You may spend thousands of dollars on a new weight-lifting machine, but you don't get any stronger until you pick up the weight and begin to work at it. We can't be oblivious to the rights that we are granted. We have to acknowledge these rights and exercise them or they will disappear. As soon as we succumb to this kind of government involvement, we lose our basic freedoms.
First Amendment concerns are raised regarding Senate passage of hate-crimes bill
Siyang Liu
On October 22, 2009, Senate approved a hate-crimes bill that expanded possible prosecution to hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Even though the name of the bill sounds uncontroversial enough, it has been concerning to some. One noticeable argument from the opposition, namely by 60 conservative leaders in this case, was that this bill would ‘criminalize preaching the Gospel and put preachers in the crosshairs.’
The question is that does this bill really encroach on our First Amendment rights? After all, if what the conservative leaders claim in this case is true, then this bill would be hurting our freedom of religion.
The truth these, such claims by the opposition border more along fear-mongering than appealing to the state of our freedoms. Consider the content of this bill. Once it becomes law, it gives the Department of Justice broader authority to investigate and prosecute violent crimes “motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.”
The key word here is violent crimes. The First Amendment, or namely freedom of religion and speech in this case, is meant to protect all Americans’ rights to expression. Violent crimes and freedom of expression are two very different things. If these conservative leaders worried about having a basic First Amendment right violated, they shouldn’t be.
With or without this bill, our freedoms of expression and religion go on untouched. Regardless of whether opinions and practices relating to the First Amendment are “good” or “bad” in society’s eyes, the American justice system has stuck to our rights. Just as some people have taken advantage of the First Amendment to voice for social change, there have been some others who attend KKK rallies. The point is that whatever direction we choose to take in our opinion or what we believe in, we can do so without facing legal consequences.
The simple fact is, the First Amendment and this bill do not touch one another in any harmful way. If some wish to, they are still 100% empowered to express dissent based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If one’s religion requires preaching against certain sexual orientations or gender identities, so be it. No one is going to prosecute you for exercising your First Amendment rights; and this bill certainly doesn’t either.
Those who are are still opposed to this bill in light of these realities are entitled to their stances. However, they should take up their opposition to this expansion of hate-crimes prosecution as a political matter, instead of citing the First Amendment for misleading purposes.
Ohio principal censors student obituary and photograph
A students free expression right in journalism can be a issue. In this case the principle of Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Ohio is censoring the student newspaper to prevent the publication of printing an obituary and photo of a recent student who was a suicide victim. They say it has been the schools policy for years to print a obituary and photo of a student of teacher who has passed away.
The editor and chief of the school newspaper said that the suicides victim's mother had wrote a letter to be printed in the newspaper, which was thanking her son's friends and telling them if they needed anything to come because the family would be there for support. Originally the principle said that it was OK and they could run the obituary and photo, however a couple days before the printed the principle insisted they pull the obituary and photo.They stilled ran the letter because the principle thought it was an effective way to show support for the students and family members. The victims mother then sent an email to the staff asking if any students want to include anything in it and 30 min later the principle said no. the principle thought if they would run the obituary and photo it could cause other students to commit suicide. The editor in chief thought it would of been the right thing to do saying they have done this for the other students that have passed away, it would be disrespectful to him if we didn't.
When i read this it blew me away, i mean that is not the right thing to do in that situation. If you right obituary's and put photos in for others that have passed away you should do the same even though he committed suicide. I mean it was the kids choice to do what he did, and if he would of died of a illness they prolly would of wrote a obituary and put in a photo. I think it would of done the students and family member better if they would of published it, that the respectful and right thing to do well actually its the humane thing to do. If i were to commit suicide i would want a obituary written about me. I wonder if a teacher were to commit suicide if they would write a obituary about them? I think the family and Friends would and should have more say in if they published an obituary, i mean they are the people they grew to love the kid and they know who he really was, and those people would put aside that he committed suicide in a time like that and remember the good memories they had when he/she was still alive. I think any high school newspaper should be allowed to publish an obituary unless the parents decide they don't want it in there because the students have the right to read about students and teachers that have passed away. however the family decision should overall come first before publishing. Free expression in journalism can be a issue and sometimes it stinks, like censoring the obituary like thy did in Ohio.
Article by: Lindsay McKnight
The editor and chief of the school newspaper said that the suicides victim's mother had wrote a letter to be printed in the newspaper, which was thanking her son's friends and telling them if they needed anything to come because the family would be there for support. Originally the principle said that it was OK and they could run the obituary and photo, however a couple days before the printed the principle insisted they pull the obituary and photo.They stilled ran the letter because the principle thought it was an effective way to show support for the students and family members. The victims mother then sent an email to the staff asking if any students want to include anything in it and 30 min later the principle said no. the principle thought if they would run the obituary and photo it could cause other students to commit suicide. The editor in chief thought it would of been the right thing to do saying they have done this for the other students that have passed away, it would be disrespectful to him if we didn't.
When i read this it blew me away, i mean that is not the right thing to do in that situation. If you right obituary's and put photos in for others that have passed away you should do the same even though he committed suicide. I mean it was the kids choice to do what he did, and if he would of died of a illness they prolly would of wrote a obituary and put in a photo. I think it would of done the students and family member better if they would of published it, that the respectful and right thing to do well actually its the humane thing to do. If i were to commit suicide i would want a obituary written about me. I wonder if a teacher were to commit suicide if they would write a obituary about them? I think the family and Friends would and should have more say in if they published an obituary, i mean they are the people they grew to love the kid and they know who he really was, and those people would put aside that he committed suicide in a time like that and remember the good memories they had when he/she was still alive. I think any high school newspaper should be allowed to publish an obituary unless the parents decide they don't want it in there because the students have the right to read about students and teachers that have passed away. however the family decision should overall come first before publishing. Free expression in journalism can be a issue and sometimes it stinks, like censoring the obituary like thy did in Ohio.
Article by: Lindsay McKnight
Free Flow Information Act
Mike Moates
The Free Flow of Information Act has progressed enough to be considered before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The language in this bill changes the definition of who is a journalist. The Free Flow of Information Act states that “A person with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information…” is protected.
This is good news for students, college and high school alike. Before this bill there was a financial requirement for being defined and protected as a journalist. Because students aren’t paid for their work their rights were defined differently than journalists with major publications such as the New York Times.
Larger publications have a great deal more resources than student publications. Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the
What the Free Flow of Information Act will do is allow students and unpaid journalists a great deal more freedom in production of news stories. Once passed this bill will protect all journalists, paid or not. This is an important step in bringing student coverage into a similar playing field as the rest of the professional world of journalism.
The Free Flow of Information Act will allow journalism to become a much more inclusive environment. By removing the financial requirement to be considered a journalist more people will be encouraged to seek out information and present it to the public.
While the bill is not yet in effect it has been gaining momentum within the government, passing the House and moving onto the Senate after compromises were made between the government and news organizations. If passed, the Free Flow Information Act will allow journalists (paid or unpaid) in all areas of work more freedoms and protection.
Students punished by high school for posting sexually suggestive photos on myspace
By: William Liao
At Churubusco High, a high school in Indianapolis, two girls were punished by their local school administration. As a result, the two girls complained and said that their free-speech rights were violated, as they were banned from extra curricular activities for a joke that they had previously committed, that had no relation whatsoever to their school-or any school for that matter.
So what happened exactly? Well, it was that summer before school. The girls had taken photos of them in lingerie and posted them on myspace. Now these photos weren't made open to all public, the photos were only viewable by their peers. Shortly after having posted these photos, the photos had reached a school official, and eventually their principal. As a result, when school commenced, both girls were told to attend counseling, and were banned from all extra-curricular activities.
Naturally, like any sort of case regarding the rights of a person, there are multiple perspectives. In this case we have two:
Side 1: Child advocates support the measures taken, and claim that it is important to monitor students.
Side 2: The children have a right to their own private practice, and the school does not have the right to dictate what the girls chose to do outside of the school environment.
So which side am I on? The latter. It's quite simple, and very plain: we as people, beyond any sort of written document, have rights as beings. At the most basic of levels it all comes down to a few things: we are entitled to our individuality, we are entitled to our private practice, and we are entitled to dictate precisely the way in which we commit to those two things, so long as we do not prevent any other being from doing the same thing. There is no reason we should conform and be under the thumb of another.
These girls did not harm anybody, they did not prevent anybody from exercising their very own rights: so what gives the school official the right to rob them of their own rights as beings? The truth is, the school official does not have any right to do so. The school official's job is to maintain order within a school, to insure that students can receive an education. What part of their job description requires them to monitor the actions of students outside of school-especially when it doesn't mar any part of the education process?
To sum it all up: the solution to all of this is to exercise the simple understanding of our rights as beings. The school officials need to understand what they are allowed to dictate, and why. This incident is an absolute abuse of their own power. The girls had every right to do what they did, as it was a matter of their own private practice-and so it should remain that way: private.
At Churubusco High, a high school in Indianapolis, two girls were punished by their local school administration. As a result, the two girls complained and said that their free-speech rights were violated, as they were banned from extra curricular activities for a joke that they had previously committed, that had no relation whatsoever to their school-or any school for that matter.
So what happened exactly? Well, it was that summer before school. The girls had taken photos of them in lingerie and posted them on myspace. Now these photos weren't made open to all public, the photos were only viewable by their peers. Shortly after having posted these photos, the photos had reached a school official, and eventually their principal. As a result, when school commenced, both girls were told to attend counseling, and were banned from all extra-curricular activities.
Naturally, like any sort of case regarding the rights of a person, there are multiple perspectives. In this case we have two:
Side 1: Child advocates support the measures taken, and claim that it is important to monitor students.
Side 2: The children have a right to their own private practice, and the school does not have the right to dictate what the girls chose to do outside of the school environment.
So which side am I on? The latter. It's quite simple, and very plain: we as people, beyond any sort of written document, have rights as beings. At the most basic of levels it all comes down to a few things: we are entitled to our individuality, we are entitled to our private practice, and we are entitled to dictate precisely the way in which we commit to those two things, so long as we do not prevent any other being from doing the same thing. There is no reason we should conform and be under the thumb of another.
These girls did not harm anybody, they did not prevent anybody from exercising their very own rights: so what gives the school official the right to rob them of their own rights as beings? The truth is, the school official does not have any right to do so. The school official's job is to maintain order within a school, to insure that students can receive an education. What part of their job description requires them to monitor the actions of students outside of school-especially when it doesn't mar any part of the education process?
To sum it all up: the solution to all of this is to exercise the simple understanding of our rights as beings. The school officials need to understand what they are allowed to dictate, and why. This incident is an absolute abuse of their own power. The girls had every right to do what they did, as it was a matter of their own private practice-and so it should remain that way: private.
First Amendment
Los Angeles City College (LACC) administrators are battling with the students’ school newspaper staff over a plan to include the newspaper’s budget with the student activities department. The possibility of this happening worries the newspaper staff because they believe that if this happened, it would give the administrators an opportunity to review the content o the paper before it is distributed. The staff believes that the school administrators might attempt to censor or alter the content of the paper to their own liking and approval.
The paper’s faculty advisor believes that including the paper in the activities department is an attempt by the administration to take command of the content included in the newspaper. The advisor stated that she was told by the administration that they would be looking at the content. The advisor is worried, saying that she thinks that the administrators’ power over the paper would deter students from wanting to work in the school newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is afraid that the content will be biased if the administrators included their budget with the budget of student activities. The editor-in-chief believes that the problem would be that the administrators would be editing all of their content. The paper would basically no longer be in the hands of the news staff.
This is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of the press. The newspaper staff have the right to post their own content without being censored or reviewed by the school administration. The administration has no right to regulate the content of the newspaper. The seemingly innocent plan of the administration to include the budget of the newspaper with the budget of the student activities department is simply the administration attempting to find a way to censor and edit the content of the paper without causing a lot of controversy. The newspaper staff is making the right decision by trying to prevent this from happening.
Nick Hobbs
The paper’s faculty advisor believes that including the paper in the activities department is an attempt by the administration to take command of the content included in the newspaper. The advisor stated that she was told by the administration that they would be looking at the content. The advisor is worried, saying that she thinks that the administrators’ power over the paper would deter students from wanting to work in the school newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is afraid that the content will be biased if the administrators included their budget with the budget of student activities. The editor-in-chief believes that the problem would be that the administrators would be editing all of their content. The paper would basically no longer be in the hands of the news staff.
This is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of the press. The newspaper staff have the right to post their own content without being censored or reviewed by the school administration. The administration has no right to regulate the content of the newspaper. The seemingly innocent plan of the administration to include the budget of the newspaper with the budget of the student activities department is simply the administration attempting to find a way to censor and edit the content of the paper without causing a lot of controversy. The newspaper staff is making the right decision by trying to prevent this from happening.
Nick Hobbs
Article by Jessi Rannochio
There is a “Liberal Concern” about student’s free-expression right in journalism. This is because students who want to write about an issue that has to do with sex and sexuality have to sensor what they say, and when doing that they can’t show their real opinion.
John Butterfield of California’s Rio Americano High School recently wrote an article criticizing the school’s sexuality. Butterfield wrote about the cheer team and their provocative dance. “This is a high school rally, not the latest music video, and when the song team spends most of the routine bent over, while it may [elicit] catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate.”
The administrators decided to let this article run in the paper no matter how unflattering it may be. When doing this they hope for the team to realize they need to make a change.
Once this was printed it came to Billy O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News, attention. O’Reilly decided to air the footage of the dancers performing. In airing this footage it has caused an outcry for the team to revise their routine, so they did.
This is what uncensored journalism can do. If the administrators had thought that this article was too inappropriate to publish, then the team would have never seen how provocative their dances were. And because of this they changed their dance.
I think that uncensored journalism in high school is important because high school is the time in teenager’s lives where you really start to form your own opinions and we should be able to express them with out limits. When you put limits on people’s opinions they start to get warped and then eventually turn into more fact not opinion.
As a teenage journalist I am passionate about freedom of expression and I think that we need more of it in high school journalism.
There is a “Liberal Concern” about student’s free-expression right in journalism. This is because students who want to write about an issue that has to do with sex and sexuality have to sensor what they say, and when doing that they can’t show their real opinion.
John Butterfield of California’s Rio Americano High School recently wrote an article criticizing the school’s sexuality. Butterfield wrote about the cheer team and their provocative dance. “This is a high school rally, not the latest music video, and when the song team spends most of the routine bent over, while it may [elicit] catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate.”
The administrators decided to let this article run in the paper no matter how unflattering it may be. When doing this they hope for the team to realize they need to make a change.
Once this was printed it came to Billy O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News, attention. O’Reilly decided to air the footage of the dancers performing. In airing this footage it has caused an outcry for the team to revise their routine, so they did.
This is what uncensored journalism can do. If the administrators had thought that this article was too inappropriate to publish, then the team would have never seen how provocative their dances were. And because of this they changed their dance.
I think that uncensored journalism in high school is important because high school is the time in teenager’s lives where you really start to form your own opinions and we should be able to express them with out limits. When you put limits on people’s opinions they start to get warped and then eventually turn into more fact not opinion.
As a teenage journalist I am passionate about freedom of expression and I think that we need more of it in high school journalism.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Censoring Administrations Make A Difference in an Unexpected Way
by Victoria Ison
Censor-happy administrators need to realize that when they stifle student voices the only thing they really accomplish is the satisfaction of their own paranoia.
Followers of first amendment media will have noticed the recent collection of headlines concerning censorship of tattoo-focused articles, advertisements and/or commentaries in certain high school publications.
Citing from a spectrum of supposed reasons, school administrations have felt it necessary to prevent the printing of students’ feature pieces. Some have cut already placed and purchased ads, causing a communication mayhem of back-and-forth apologies and explanations and also damaging the financial stability and reputation of school student media. Others have cut pieces at the last minute, leaving student journalist scrambling for something to fill the glaring holes.
In doing this, these administrations have created a raucous likely far more widespread and passionate than would have arisen had the material been permitted to print as planned. They have exercised and maintained their authority, certainly, but with the loss of personal respect from members of their student media, their communities, and the strangers scanning the headlines of first amendment blogs across the web.
They did all this as if their censorship could really make a difference.
The likelihood of vast numbers of high school students being encouraged to get tattoos because of an objective article in their high school newspaper (as one administrator suggested might occur if an piece he cut was permitted to print) is almost nonexistent. In all frankness, student newspaper readership numbers in many high schools are far from impressive.
Furthermore, a spectacularly miniscule percentage of student media material is actually censor-worthy. When advisors do their jobs properly, students are discouraged from pursuing any truly insensitive or “dangerous” stories, angles or ideas before the print ever hits the page.
In censoring material, administrators do not “protect” their student populations. They do not prevent them from getting tattoos, or participating in any sort of illicit behavior they had already planned. They probably do not change their readership’s lives in any way.
In fact, these administrators often accomplish exactly the opposite of their intentions. Word of squashed rights spreads fast and inane censorship incidents serve to inflame the love of other journalists for their beloved first amendment.
By censoring, administrators simply make others more determined to exercise their right to free speech. They serve as examples of “evil” administrations and make others realize the first amendment isn’t something to be taken for granted. They promote free speech awareness.
One could almost say that by censoring, administrations do the first amendment a favor.
Censor-happy administrators need to realize that when they stifle student voices the only thing they really accomplish is the satisfaction of their own paranoia.
Followers of first amendment media will have noticed the recent collection of headlines concerning censorship of tattoo-focused articles, advertisements and/or commentaries in certain high school publications.
Citing from a spectrum of supposed reasons, school administrations have felt it necessary to prevent the printing of students’ feature pieces. Some have cut already placed and purchased ads, causing a communication mayhem of back-and-forth apologies and explanations and also damaging the financial stability and reputation of school student media. Others have cut pieces at the last minute, leaving student journalist scrambling for something to fill the glaring holes.
In doing this, these administrations have created a raucous likely far more widespread and passionate than would have arisen had the material been permitted to print as planned. They have exercised and maintained their authority, certainly, but with the loss of personal respect from members of their student media, their communities, and the strangers scanning the headlines of first amendment blogs across the web.
They did all this as if their censorship could really make a difference.
The likelihood of vast numbers of high school students being encouraged to get tattoos because of an objective article in their high school newspaper (as one administrator suggested might occur if an piece he cut was permitted to print) is almost nonexistent. In all frankness, student newspaper readership numbers in many high schools are far from impressive.
Furthermore, a spectacularly miniscule percentage of student media material is actually censor-worthy. When advisors do their jobs properly, students are discouraged from pursuing any truly insensitive or “dangerous” stories, angles or ideas before the print ever hits the page.
In censoring material, administrators do not “protect” their student populations. They do not prevent them from getting tattoos, or participating in any sort of illicit behavior they had already planned. They probably do not change their readership’s lives in any way.
In fact, these administrators often accomplish exactly the opposite of their intentions. Word of squashed rights spreads fast and inane censorship incidents serve to inflame the love of other journalists for their beloved first amendment.
By censoring, administrators simply make others more determined to exercise their right to free speech. They serve as examples of “evil” administrations and make others realize the first amendment isn’t something to be taken for granted. They promote free speech awareness.
One could almost say that by censoring, administrations do the first amendment a favor.
Missouri Principal censors newspaper's articles about tattoos
Scott Hoover
Fused Sports Editor
Timberland High School Principal Winston Rogers is refusing to give the editors of the student publication an explanation for why he required replacement of a story in their paper that included ads and an article about tattoos.
The original layout included a student story and editorial, the story was on the topic of health risks concerning tattoos and the editorial talked about the certain meanings of tattoos. Also on the page were two tattoo parlor ads.
The principal reviewed the paper and flared all four aspects for changes. He requested that the students add quotes that portrayed the "conservative" viewpoint of the first article. Though the students made the required changes, ultimately only the ads were permitted to print.
Censorship can be a complicated dilemma for many high school publications. Some administrators feel that it is there duty to navigate the publications ideas sheltering there students from reality and the truth. This type of censorship is just delaying the inevitable and confusing the ill-informed. High school students are at a curious and adventurous age; students need to be aware of what the concerns are that involve their school and student publications are on the front line of the student media.
It is one thing for Principal Winston Rogers to censor an article concerning something that he feels is threatening the well being of his students but that’s just it, he doesn’t give any explanation why he is pulling the article from the newspaper. The editor-in-chief said that Rodgers only asked for the publication to “trust him” on his decision and that it was being cut because of ‘the principal’s discretion’.
Censorship is and will always be an ongoing problem. However, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier over administrators’ censoring high school publications, “under the First Amendment, school officials can censor student newspapers when they can justify their decision by stating an educational purpose. Though, this decision does not allow school officials to censor articles wantonly or based on personal opinion.”
Reasoning is one of the most powerful defenses behind an argument.
Fused Sports Editor
Timberland High School Principal Winston Rogers is refusing to give the editors of the student publication an explanation for why he required replacement of a story in their paper that included ads and an article about tattoos.
The original layout included a student story and editorial, the story was on the topic of health risks concerning tattoos and the editorial talked about the certain meanings of tattoos. Also on the page were two tattoo parlor ads.
The principal reviewed the paper and flared all four aspects for changes. He requested that the students add quotes that portrayed the "conservative" viewpoint of the first article. Though the students made the required changes, ultimately only the ads were permitted to print.
Censorship can be a complicated dilemma for many high school publications. Some administrators feel that it is there duty to navigate the publications ideas sheltering there students from reality and the truth. This type of censorship is just delaying the inevitable and confusing the ill-informed. High school students are at a curious and adventurous age; students need to be aware of what the concerns are that involve their school and student publications are on the front line of the student media.
It is one thing for Principal Winston Rogers to censor an article concerning something that he feels is threatening the well being of his students but that’s just it, he doesn’t give any explanation why he is pulling the article from the newspaper. The editor-in-chief said that Rodgers only asked for the publication to “trust him” on his decision and that it was being cut because of ‘the principal’s discretion’.
Censorship is and will always be an ongoing problem. However, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier over administrators’ censoring high school publications, “under the First Amendment, school officials can censor student newspapers when they can justify their decision by stating an educational purpose. Though, this decision does not allow school officials to censor articles wantonly or based on personal opinion.”
Reasoning is one of the most powerful defenses behind an argument.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Administration Outside Their Limits
By Caitlin McCoy
Feature Editor
Angela Rolston, a student in a publication at Bellevue East High School interviewed the superintendent, John Deegan, about the stimulus dollars. However, while reviewing the Q&A Rolston had compiled together, Deegan completely changed his responses. He said that he did this to prevent unnecessary controversy. Deegan argued that he did not know Rolston’s intentions prior to the interview.
My opinion on this dilemma is that the Q&A should have been left as it was originally. Deegan did not have the right to change his answers regardless of if he felt his words would give people the wrong idea. Rolston should have either not given him the Q&A to look at or should have made it very clear he could not change it at all. The situation was not handled perfectly on either end but the primary dilemma was because of Deegan’s wrong action of changing his answers.
On top of this issue, Brad Stueve, the principal at Bellevue East High School, decided that an article should be removed from an issue because it was inappropriate for a high school newspaper. This article was supporting the idea that students should attend board meetings to be knowledgeable of current topics being discussed.
In this situation, Stueve had no reason to stop students from attending board meetings. There is no rule preventing students from going to the meetings and therefore Stueve can’t suddenly disallow an article supporting it. Stueve’s action only makes others believe he is hiding something or that he does not want students to benefit. Either way, Stueve did not make a good choice.
It is unfortunate that both of these dilemmas occurred at the same high school with administration. However, every facility has its conflicts. Although both Deegan and Stueve had high positions within the school, they did not have the right to prohibit articles that were absolutely acceptable just because their opinion contradicted the material.
Feature Editor
Angela Rolston, a student in a publication at Bellevue East High School interviewed the superintendent, John Deegan, about the stimulus dollars. However, while reviewing the Q&A Rolston had compiled together, Deegan completely changed his responses. He said that he did this to prevent unnecessary controversy. Deegan argued that he did not know Rolston’s intentions prior to the interview.
My opinion on this dilemma is that the Q&A should have been left as it was originally. Deegan did not have the right to change his answers regardless of if he felt his words would give people the wrong idea. Rolston should have either not given him the Q&A to look at or should have made it very clear he could not change it at all. The situation was not handled perfectly on either end but the primary dilemma was because of Deegan’s wrong action of changing his answers.
On top of this issue, Brad Stueve, the principal at Bellevue East High School, decided that an article should be removed from an issue because it was inappropriate for a high school newspaper. This article was supporting the idea that students should attend board meetings to be knowledgeable of current topics being discussed.
In this situation, Stueve had no reason to stop students from attending board meetings. There is no rule preventing students from going to the meetings and therefore Stueve can’t suddenly disallow an article supporting it. Stueve’s action only makes others believe he is hiding something or that he does not want students to benefit. Either way, Stueve did not make a good choice.
It is unfortunate that both of these dilemmas occurred at the same high school with administration. However, every facility has its conflicts. Although both Deegan and Stueve had high positions within the school, they did not have the right to prohibit articles that were absolutely acceptable just because their opinion contradicted the material.
Freedom of Belief or Disbelief
By Naama Levy,
Photo and Profile Editor
Atheist ads on DART buses in Des Moines, Iowa, reading “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” inflamed a dispute. The advertisements were created by Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers. "We wanted to do it in order to let people know -- who are atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists -- that they are not alone, that there are places for them to go and meet people and to be involved," said Randy Henderson, president of the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers.
Due to phone calls of people who were offended by the ads, the ads were taken down by DART after only four days. However, DART later put the signs back up, admitting that they have run Christian advertisements in the past and promising to refund all the money for the ads.
This case is an example of people overreacting and opposing to something before even thinking about it. Had DART and the people who complained about the ads realized that it is completely legal for someone to create and hang up pro atheist ads, they might have simply let them be. This country’s foundation states that while there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone’s views, one’s freedom of expression can never be taken away.
The purpose of the first amendment was to protect the weaker communities, those whose voices would not be heard otherwise. Its purpose was and still is to prevent the larger groups from forcing their views on others and silencing oppositions. The first amendment grants us the right to believe in whatever we want or not to believe in anything, and also the freedom to express those views. Those religious people who complained about the atheist ads felt that since they are the majority, they have the power to advertise their beliefs and silence others’, which is precisely the kind of problem that necessitated the first amendment.
Photo and Profile Editor
Atheist ads on DART buses in Des Moines, Iowa, reading “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” inflamed a dispute. The advertisements were created by Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers. "We wanted to do it in order to let people know -- who are atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists -- that they are not alone, that there are places for them to go and meet people and to be involved," said Randy Henderson, president of the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers.
Due to phone calls of people who were offended by the ads, the ads were taken down by DART after only four days. However, DART later put the signs back up, admitting that they have run Christian advertisements in the past and promising to refund all the money for the ads.
This case is an example of people overreacting and opposing to something before even thinking about it. Had DART and the people who complained about the ads realized that it is completely legal for someone to create and hang up pro atheist ads, they might have simply let them be. This country’s foundation states that while there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone’s views, one’s freedom of expression can never be taken away.
The purpose of the first amendment was to protect the weaker communities, those whose voices would not be heard otherwise. Its purpose was and still is to prevent the larger groups from forcing their views on others and silencing oppositions. The first amendment grants us the right to believe in whatever we want or not to believe in anything, and also the freedom to express those views. Those religious people who complained about the atheist ads felt that since they are the majority, they have the power to advertise their beliefs and silence others’, which is precisely the kind of problem that necessitated the first amendment.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
California principal finally gets it right
By: Sami Haddad
Fused Sports Editor
During September 16, 2009 Principle Sue Vaughn, the principal of Orange County High School of the Arts, said it was mandatory that the student publication evolution had to be done through prior review. The Adviser to this publication, Konnie Krislock, refused to let her publication be viewed before it was sent to the presses. Krislock and the school’s administration then went into a two hour long meeting to discuss the problem. As it turned out, the school had no idea what California’s state education code even said about the freedom of expressions. Soon enough Vaughn retracted her statement and let the paper run without prior review.
Just thinking about this story it would make one think, how many other situations like this are happening the nation? Where schools, due to ignorance, shut down publications because they just don’t know what the law is. It is sad to see a school’s administration react in such a naïve manner to where they decide to issue prior review to the paper just because they don’t know what else to do. Krislock said herself that there was nothing in her publication that was obscene, libelous, or disruptive.
The school was very brave to fight against an oppressive system, it is this blind ignorance that leads to the censoring of many bright and skilled writers. Even if it was illegal for the school to censor the paper at all (Section 48907 in the code for California’s education code) they were willing to do that to end a publication.
If anything could have come out of this, Krislock would have had the right to sue the school itself for trying to rob her students their own right to express themselves. As a writer I hope that when this issue comes up again in any other school across the U.S.A. we will have the resources and the will power to end any thoughts of censorship among the student publication community.
Fused Sports Editor
During September 16, 2009 Principle Sue Vaughn, the principal of Orange County High School of the Arts, said it was mandatory that the student publication evolution had to be done through prior review. The Adviser to this publication, Konnie Krislock, refused to let her publication be viewed before it was sent to the presses. Krislock and the school’s administration then went into a two hour long meeting to discuss the problem. As it turned out, the school had no idea what California’s state education code even said about the freedom of expressions. Soon enough Vaughn retracted her statement and let the paper run without prior review.
Just thinking about this story it would make one think, how many other situations like this are happening the nation? Where schools, due to ignorance, shut down publications because they just don’t know what the law is. It is sad to see a school’s administration react in such a naïve manner to where they decide to issue prior review to the paper just because they don’t know what else to do. Krislock said herself that there was nothing in her publication that was obscene, libelous, or disruptive.
The school was very brave to fight against an oppressive system, it is this blind ignorance that leads to the censoring of many bright and skilled writers. Even if it was illegal for the school to censor the paper at all (Section 48907 in the code for California’s education code) they were willing to do that to end a publication.
If anything could have come out of this, Krislock would have had the right to sue the school itself for trying to rob her students their own right to express themselves. As a writer I hope that when this issue comes up again in any other school across the U.S.A. we will have the resources and the will power to end any thoughts of censorship among the student publication community.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Greek Life
Tamar Shachaf
About you Editor
The University of West Georgia's student newspaper "The West Georgian" respects first amendment rights. The editor-in-chief permitted to publish an article by a staffer which was a satirical view of Greek life. The Student Government Assosciation and the Student Activity Fee Budget Allocation (SAFBA), it seems, did not agree that this article was appropriate. After the release of the article, which received thousands of views and comments, the SGA introduced and passed a bill to suspend funding for the paper.
Soon after the bill was passed, the SAFBA recommended to cut $11,500 from the budget of the newspaper. Though $7000 is cut because they fund an advisor, which is not allowed, the other $4500 are a mystery. The newspaper inquired into why the money was taken, yet minutes were not taken at any of the meetings and there seemed to be no reason. The only reason the SAFBA cited is that the West Georgian did not "meet the students' needs."
As a student newspaper, the West Georgian has to publish all views. Eventhough many did not agree with the Greek article it was still a perfectly acceptable article and use of free speech. The college should recognize that and be glad their paper is not censoring themselves. In a college world that is so full of Greek life it is neccessary to be reminded that it is not for everyone. The SAFBA and SAG should support the paper when it is being criticized because it is a part of their school and one of the most important parts.
https://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1905&year=2009
About you Editor
The University of West Georgia's student newspaper "The West Georgian" respects first amendment rights. The editor-in-chief permitted to publish an article by a staffer which was a satirical view of Greek life. The Student Government Assosciation and the Student Activity Fee Budget Allocation (SAFBA), it seems, did not agree that this article was appropriate. After the release of the article, which received thousands of views and comments, the SGA introduced and passed a bill to suspend funding for the paper.
Soon after the bill was passed, the SAFBA recommended to cut $11,500 from the budget of the newspaper. Though $7000 is cut because they fund an advisor, which is not allowed, the other $4500 are a mystery. The newspaper inquired into why the money was taken, yet minutes were not taken at any of the meetings and there seemed to be no reason. The only reason the SAFBA cited is that the West Georgian did not "meet the students' needs."
As a student newspaper, the West Georgian has to publish all views. Eventhough many did not agree with the Greek article it was still a perfectly acceptable article and use of free speech. The college should recognize that and be glad their paper is not censoring themselves. In a college world that is so full of Greek life it is neccessary to be reminded that it is not for everyone. The SAFBA and SAG should support the paper when it is being criticized because it is a part of their school and one of the most important parts.
https://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1905&year=2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheerleading coach fired for setting bad example for students
Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused
At Casa Robles High School in Orangevale California, cheerleading coach Carlie Christine was fired after some parents and students turned in a picture of her posing nude for Playboy Magazine. The students were angry that they did not make the cheerleading squad and had their parents turn in this photo to the school principal. The school administration decided that this showed Christine was a bad role model for students, and it was inappropriate for her to continue as the cheerleading coach.
While many people may not have agreed with Christine posing in this magazine, her job definitely should not have been taken away because of this. Every person is guaranteed freedom of expression by the First Amendment, and Christine should not be excluded from this right.
Just because these students may have looked up to Christine as a coach does not mean that they would have followed in her footsteps and started posing for this magazine themselves. Parents were concerned that their children had seen these pictures, but the reality is that if they felt that Christine posing for this magazine was inappropriate then they should have talked to her about it, and not gone to the school administration. Christine did absolutely nothing wrong and it is completely inappropriate that she was fired for this. If anything, the school system should be sued for taking away her valuable rights to freedom of expression.
To You editor, Fused
At Casa Robles High School in Orangevale California, cheerleading coach Carlie Christine was fired after some parents and students turned in a picture of her posing nude for Playboy Magazine. The students were angry that they did not make the cheerleading squad and had their parents turn in this photo to the school principal. The school administration decided that this showed Christine was a bad role model for students, and it was inappropriate for her to continue as the cheerleading coach.
While many people may not have agreed with Christine posing in this magazine, her job definitely should not have been taken away because of this. Every person is guaranteed freedom of expression by the First Amendment, and Christine should not be excluded from this right.
Just because these students may have looked up to Christine as a coach does not mean that they would have followed in her footsteps and started posing for this magazine themselves. Parents were concerned that their children had seen these pictures, but the reality is that if they felt that Christine posing for this magazine was inappropriate then they should have talked to her about it, and not gone to the school administration. Christine did absolutely nothing wrong and it is completely inappropriate that she was fired for this. If anything, the school system should be sued for taking away her valuable rights to freedom of expression.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Policy Changes at High School in Ill.
May Blog
Hannah Nixon
Announcements Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1901
At a high school in Lincolnshire, Ill. a pandemonium broke out when student advisor Barbara Thill announced her resignation at Stephenson High School following the new policy rules concerning the school paper she advises called the “Statesman.”
The school board had been considering, they say, enforcing these new rules for quite some time. These new policies include more oversight of the student newspaper by Communication Arts Director David Noskin. He will now be reviewing each issue before it goes to print. The staff members of the “Statesman” were outraged, including Managing Editor Jamie Hausman who wrote a letter to the local newspaper about the unpleasant situation.
What finally triggered the policy changes was the Jan. 30 issue of the “Statesman” which featured an in-depth piece about dating habits and especially what “hooking up” means to students today. Jim Conrey, director of public information at Stephenson High School, made it clear the January issue was not the direct cause of the policy changes.
“It’s something that has been under consideration for some time,” Conrey said.
The students on the school’s paper have every right to be maddened by the situation. Not only is their educator leaving because of these policies, they will not be told the things they can and can’t write about. This has been a freedom at North that FUSED publications students have, and it is difficult to imagine what the publication would be like if staff members were told they could not right about a topic because a school authority figure doesn’t see it as appropriate.
The January article of the “Statesman” featuring topics on “hooking up” was described on SPLC’s website as completely relevant to teenage students. This is exactly what newspapers, magazines, and publications are meant to do- to serve their audience. The students, not just the staff members of the paper but the others as well, should not be punished by being ridden of information that could potentially inform them of issues they will face in high school.
Hannah Nixon
Announcements Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1901
At a high school in Lincolnshire, Ill. a pandemonium broke out when student advisor Barbara Thill announced her resignation at Stephenson High School following the new policy rules concerning the school paper she advises called the “Statesman.”
The school board had been considering, they say, enforcing these new rules for quite some time. These new policies include more oversight of the student newspaper by Communication Arts Director David Noskin. He will now be reviewing each issue before it goes to print. The staff members of the “Statesman” were outraged, including Managing Editor Jamie Hausman who wrote a letter to the local newspaper about the unpleasant situation.
What finally triggered the policy changes was the Jan. 30 issue of the “Statesman” which featured an in-depth piece about dating habits and especially what “hooking up” means to students today. Jim Conrey, director of public information at Stephenson High School, made it clear the January issue was not the direct cause of the policy changes.
“It’s something that has been under consideration for some time,” Conrey said.
The students on the school’s paper have every right to be maddened by the situation. Not only is their educator leaving because of these policies, they will not be told the things they can and can’t write about. This has been a freedom at North that FUSED publications students have, and it is difficult to imagine what the publication would be like if staff members were told they could not right about a topic because a school authority figure doesn’t see it as appropriate.
The January article of the “Statesman” featuring topics on “hooking up” was described on SPLC’s website as completely relevant to teenage students. This is exactly what newspapers, magazines, and publications are meant to do- to serve their audience. The students, not just the staff members of the paper but the others as well, should not be punished by being ridden of information that could potentially inform them of issues they will face in high school.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Silly woman, the truth is for men...
Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor
During the Miss USA pageant that took place near the end of April, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by super blogger Perez Hilton how she felt about gay marriage. In response to the question, she gave her honest opinion that she was raised to believe and did wholly believe that marriage is a union between only a man and a woman.
Silly, silly woman. How could she be so oblivious to who she was talking to? According to Urban Dictionary, "Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira), the self-proclaimed 'Queen of all Media', is an openly gay celebrity gossip blogger." His flamboyant rants and witty remarks amuse his readers almost daily. So how could a woman of such a heavy pageant background not realize that one of her judges is one of the gayest men in America?
In reaction to her controversial opinion, the media exploded. Did she lose her chance at a crown because a horrified Hilton wanted had a grudge? Is it actually possible that a grown man is so immature that he would let a woman's personal opinion interrupt his judging abilities?
She's been in numerous pageants prior to this one and should have realized by now that some people are so one-minded they can't handle what you have to say. So next time she's asked such a controversial question, she should smile, look pretty, and tell the people what they want to hear.
For You Editor
During the Miss USA pageant that took place near the end of April, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by super blogger Perez Hilton how she felt about gay marriage. In response to the question, she gave her honest opinion that she was raised to believe and did wholly believe that marriage is a union between only a man and a woman.
Silly, silly woman. How could she be so oblivious to who she was talking to? According to Urban Dictionary, "Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira), the self-proclaimed 'Queen of all Media', is an openly gay celebrity gossip blogger." His flamboyant rants and witty remarks amuse his readers almost daily. So how could a woman of such a heavy pageant background not realize that one of her judges is one of the gayest men in America?
In reaction to her controversial opinion, the media exploded. Did she lose her chance at a crown because a horrified Hilton wanted had a grudge? Is it actually possible that a grown man is so immature that he would let a woman's personal opinion interrupt his judging abilities?
She's been in numerous pageants prior to this one and should have realized by now that some people are so one-minded they can't handle what you have to say. So next time she's asked such a controversial question, she should smile, look pretty, and tell the people what they want to hear.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Put a Muzzle on it
Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
A press release issued from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression announced on April 8 the recipients of their annual Muzzle awards.
The Muzzle awards are given to the “best Muzzlers of free speech.” They are intended to recognize specific colleges, high schools and other organizations that have essentially “muzzled” its students or patrons; in some way or another, the rights to freedom of speech or expression, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, have been taken away from those who have been promised these rights since they were first enacted in the Bill of Rights.
According to the press release, the awards are given “to those who in the preceding year committed some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.”
The list of those noted for oppressing the right to free expression include the administrations of the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology in Myrtle Beach, S.C. and Millard South High School in Omaha, Neb., among others.
In these instances, school officials from the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology prevented its student newspaper from distributing an issue that included a story pertaining to same-sex marriage. At Millard South High, officials suspended 23 students for “wearing T-shirts commemorating a classmate that police said was killed in a gang-related shooting.”
These Muzzle awards clearly do not celebrate something positive, they recognize something negative—the “proliferation of measures taken to prevent controversial speech,” as Robert O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center, puts it.
To You Editor, Fused
A press release issued from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression announced on April 8 the recipients of their annual Muzzle awards.
The Muzzle awards are given to the “best Muzzlers of free speech.” They are intended to recognize specific colleges, high schools and other organizations that have essentially “muzzled” its students or patrons; in some way or another, the rights to freedom of speech or expression, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, have been taken away from those who have been promised these rights since they were first enacted in the Bill of Rights.
According to the press release, the awards are given “to those who in the preceding year committed some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.”
The list of those noted for oppressing the right to free expression include the administrations of the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology in Myrtle Beach, S.C. and Millard South High School in Omaha, Neb., among others.
In these instances, school officials from the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology prevented its student newspaper from distributing an issue that included a story pertaining to same-sex marriage. At Millard South High, officials suspended 23 students for “wearing T-shirts commemorating a classmate that police said was killed in a gang-related shooting.”
These Muzzle awards clearly do not celebrate something positive, they recognize something negative—the “proliferation of measures taken to prevent controversial speech,” as Robert O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center, puts it.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Banned Books limit on right, Banned Book Week founder dies
Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor
On April 12, 2009, Judith King, the founder of banned books week died from stomach cancer. Since 1982, King has been a strong advocate for "Intellectual Freedom." She believed that students shouldn't be told what not to read. Another librarian, Gretchen Knief, agreed, saying, "Ideas don't die because a book is forbidden reading."
The fact that any school/organization says that a book is "banned" is completely appalling, but because they are in a position of power, they are allowed their list. People that ban books are putting a lock on information. Students need to be exposed to differing opinions for that is the only way they will be able to form their own opinions.
And while banning books is not Constitutionally wrong, it does represent the power over students' rights that schools do posses. While students have their First Amendment Rights in school, they are limited. This is further represented in the fact that students are being told what they are and are not allowed to read.
Our school, with our wonderful librarians, celebrates Banned Books Week by pulling every banned book from other schools' lists and encouraging students to not only read them, but to talk about them. This is an excellent way to encourage discussion and the flow of different opinions, something that the First Amendment encourages.
For You Editor
On April 12, 2009, Judith King, the founder of banned books week died from stomach cancer. Since 1982, King has been a strong advocate for "Intellectual Freedom." She believed that students shouldn't be told what not to read. Another librarian, Gretchen Knief, agreed, saying, "Ideas don't die because a book is forbidden reading."
The fact that any school/organization says that a book is "banned" is completely appalling, but because they are in a position of power, they are allowed their list. People that ban books are putting a lock on information. Students need to be exposed to differing opinions for that is the only way they will be able to form their own opinions.
And while banning books is not Constitutionally wrong, it does represent the power over students' rights that schools do posses. While students have their First Amendment Rights in school, they are limited. This is further represented in the fact that students are being told what they are and are not allowed to read.
Our school, with our wonderful librarians, celebrates Banned Books Week by pulling every banned book from other schools' lists and encouraging students to not only read them, but to talk about them. This is an excellent way to encourage discussion and the flow of different opinions, something that the First Amendment encourages.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1898
Once again, SPLC reports of another student newspaper who will now have to be reviewed by an administrator prior to its distribution. This is not the first paper to go through this, and sadly it will not be the last. This school must show a copy of the issue to the principal 48 hours before its publication and must do so because of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which declares that publications must submit themselves to public review if there is a proven reason for it.
While students still have the freedom to write whatever they like in this paper, they know that their principal will read it and may change it. It takes freedom away from the staff of the newspaper, but also from the student body. If a staff knows that their principal will read everything and pay attention to it closely then they will not feel comfortable reporting news that may not be favorable to the school. Just because something is "politically correct" does not mean that it is all the truth.
The Journalism teacher at the school, Sally Turner, comments that "You don't question an award-winning art teacher or ask to review every piece of art that leaves the classroom," and she makes a very good point. Journalism is a form of art and expression that affects people'es lives. By blocking students' ability to publish what they want, the school is blocking the students.
About You Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1898
Once again, SPLC reports of another student newspaper who will now have to be reviewed by an administrator prior to its distribution. This is not the first paper to go through this, and sadly it will not be the last. This school must show a copy of the issue to the principal 48 hours before its publication and must do so because of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which declares that publications must submit themselves to public review if there is a proven reason for it.
While students still have the freedom to write whatever they like in this paper, they know that their principal will read it and may change it. It takes freedom away from the staff of the newspaper, but also from the student body. If a staff knows that their principal will read everything and pay attention to it closely then they will not feel comfortable reporting news that may not be favorable to the school. Just because something is "politically correct" does not mean that it is all the truth.
The Journalism teacher at the school, Sally Turner, comments that "You don't question an award-winning art teacher or ask to review every piece of art that leaves the classroom," and she makes a very good point. Journalism is a form of art and expression that affects people'es lives. By blocking students' ability to publish what they want, the school is blocking the students.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Freedom of Speech in Every Case
Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused
Last spring, the Ku Klux Klan was distributing hate literature in certain parts of Bloomington and threatening to come have a demonstration. This raised a big controversy and many people didn't want them to come because they didn't want the Klan to spread their message of hate in Bloomington. Those who were against the Klan coming to Bloomington felt that one of the Klan's primary purposes was to incite people to anger, and build hatred in the community. People also felt that since the Klan's message is a destructive one, they shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate.
However, there is another side to this controversy in that the first amendment guarantees everyone freedom of speech even if their ideas are unpopular. The Ku Klux Klan wanted to come to Bloomington in order to get attention and create trouble. But, by people giving the Klan so much focus and attention, it helped the Klan to fulfill their goals. While the Klan had every right to come and express their beliefs, there are effective methods to prevent them from gaining exposure.
Groups like the Klan are just seeking attention. While they have the right to demonstrate, the community should exercise good judgement and not attend their gatherings. If everyone ignores them and perhaps plans and attends alternative programming that promote diversity, the Klan would not gain the recognition that they are aiming for, and eventually quit coming. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech but every person has the responsibility to evaluate what speech they decide to listen to and how they are going to react to it.
To You editor, Fused
Last spring, the Ku Klux Klan was distributing hate literature in certain parts of Bloomington and threatening to come have a demonstration. This raised a big controversy and many people didn't want them to come because they didn't want the Klan to spread their message of hate in Bloomington. Those who were against the Klan coming to Bloomington felt that one of the Klan's primary purposes was to incite people to anger, and build hatred in the community. People also felt that since the Klan's message is a destructive one, they shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate.
However, there is another side to this controversy in that the first amendment guarantees everyone freedom of speech even if their ideas are unpopular. The Ku Klux Klan wanted to come to Bloomington in order to get attention and create trouble. But, by people giving the Klan so much focus and attention, it helped the Klan to fulfill their goals. While the Klan had every right to come and express their beliefs, there are effective methods to prevent them from gaining exposure.
Groups like the Klan are just seeking attention. While they have the right to demonstrate, the community should exercise good judgement and not attend their gatherings. If everyone ignores them and perhaps plans and attends alternative programming that promote diversity, the Klan would not gain the recognition that they are aiming for, and eventually quit coming. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech but every person has the responsibility to evaluate what speech they decide to listen to and how they are going to react to it.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Censorship of the body?
Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
It is a scary thing indeed when a person no longer has the right to freely express themselves on their body, something which should clearly be protected under the First Amendment’s right to free speech clause.
On April 8, information was released regarding the suspension of Anthony Joseph Brown, a high school student in Huntington, West Virginia. Brown was suspended for 10 days because he had written a controversial phrase on his hand, which read “Free A-Train.”
The phrase indicates that Brown is a supporter of Anthony “A-Train” Jennings, a former Huntington student who currently faces charges of shooting a police officer. Jennings is also the alleged leader of a gang, the Black East Thugs (BET).
Principal Greg Webb of Brown’s school justified Brown’s suspension by arguing that supporters of Jennings, who write “Free A-Train” on their hands, “caus(e) a disruption in…school and interfer(e) with the educational process.” He, as well as Judge Robert C. Chambers, who ruled on Brown’s case, also argued that Brown’s suspension was justified because it gave the school reason to be worried about gang activity and support. Webb also added that he does not believe Brown’s suspension to be an issue of censorship.
This case is a prime example of the violation of students’ rights to freedom of speech. Even if a person does not agree with or support other’s beliefs and causes, such as the support of Jennings, it does not give them validation to ban a person from writing a phrase on their hand and then suspending them from school. Disagreeing with others on controversial topics is no excuse to prohibit someone from freely expressing themselves and their beliefs.
To You Editor, Fused
It is a scary thing indeed when a person no longer has the right to freely express themselves on their body, something which should clearly be protected under the First Amendment’s right to free speech clause.
On April 8, information was released regarding the suspension of Anthony Joseph Brown, a high school student in Huntington, West Virginia. Brown was suspended for 10 days because he had written a controversial phrase on his hand, which read “Free A-Train.”
The phrase indicates that Brown is a supporter of Anthony “A-Train” Jennings, a former Huntington student who currently faces charges of shooting a police officer. Jennings is also the alleged leader of a gang, the Black East Thugs (BET).
Principal Greg Webb of Brown’s school justified Brown’s suspension by arguing that supporters of Jennings, who write “Free A-Train” on their hands, “caus(e) a disruption in…school and interfer(e) with the educational process.” He, as well as Judge Robert C. Chambers, who ruled on Brown’s case, also argued that Brown’s suspension was justified because it gave the school reason to be worried about gang activity and support. Webb also added that he does not believe Brown’s suspension to be an issue of censorship.
This case is a prime example of the violation of students’ rights to freedom of speech. Even if a person does not agree with or support other’s beliefs and causes, such as the support of Jennings, it does not give them validation to ban a person from writing a phrase on their hand and then suspending them from school. Disagreeing with others on controversial topics is no excuse to prohibit someone from freely expressing themselves and their beliefs.
Monday, April 6, 2009
How Far is Too Far? Freedom of Assembly
Hannah Nixon
Announcements Editor
April 2009 Blog Post
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1894
The week of April 29th, half of Catholic University of America’s (CWA) student newspapers were reported stolen. Copies of the paper, called The Tower, were recovered in trash bins around the campus. The staff and News Editor Justine Garbarino are looking to make up for the lost inventory. However, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not making the process easy.
After reporting the theft, the editors of the paper were informed by the Metropolitan Police department that the crime was, in fact, not considered to be a crime at all. The MPD’s reasoning was that because The Tower does not charge for their paper it could not be considered a criminal act.
However, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) Adam Goldstein said otherwise. “That the owner of property does not charge for it does not mean the property has no value,” Goldstein said.
So How far is too far? Did the culprits push the limit of freedom of assembly because they were concurrently corrupting the CUA’s freedom of press?
“We work very hard and we feel like we are getting pushed aside,” Garbarino said.
Although the culprits were exercising one of their rights as Americans, their actions were not ethical in any way because they were also undermining the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Colorado, California and Maryland are the only states who legally hold this type of act as criminal; however this does not change what the culprits’ actions evoked.
Announcements Editor
April 2009 Blog Post
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1894
The week of April 29th, half of Catholic University of America’s (CWA) student newspapers were reported stolen. Copies of the paper, called The Tower, were recovered in trash bins around the campus. The staff and News Editor Justine Garbarino are looking to make up for the lost inventory. However, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not making the process easy.
After reporting the theft, the editors of the paper were informed by the Metropolitan Police department that the crime was, in fact, not considered to be a crime at all. The MPD’s reasoning was that because The Tower does not charge for their paper it could not be considered a criminal act.
However, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) Adam Goldstein said otherwise. “That the owner of property does not charge for it does not mean the property has no value,” Goldstein said.
So How far is too far? Did the culprits push the limit of freedom of assembly because they were concurrently corrupting the CUA’s freedom of press?
“We work very hard and we feel like we are getting pushed aside,” Garbarino said.
Although the culprits were exercising one of their rights as Americans, their actions were not ethical in any way because they were also undermining the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Colorado, California and Maryland are the only states who legally hold this type of act as criminal; however this does not change what the culprits’ actions evoked.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Freedom of Religion
by Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor
When the pilgrims came to America they came to seek religious freedom. They came to America to find a place where they could practice and speak of their religion without fear. Many years have passed since the pilgrims have come to flee persecution and while religious freedom is now a constitutional right, it is still not practiced my many. Recently, a Los Angeles City College student found himself having to stand up for his religion not only in front of a class, but also in front of his professor.
Jonathan Lopez prepared a speech for a class taught by John Matteson. According to Lopez, half way through his speech about G-d and miracles he was interrupted by Matteson and ridiculed him for his beliefs. Matteson went on to write on Lopez evaluation sheet that he should ask G-d for his grade. Lopez accuses Matteson of calling him a "facist bastard" and is suing him for viewpoint discrimination.
While often the classroom is not the place for religious talks, it is also not the place for ridicule because of religion. Lopez had every right to bring up his religion and the professor should have listened even if he did not agree. Professors should respect their students, and humans should respect each other. If Matteson did say and do everything Lopez accuses him of then he is a shame to his school and to colleges in general. America is a place where everyone is guaranteed religious freedom and freedom of speech. By ridiculing Lopez, Matteson was ridiculing both of those freedoms.
http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1876
About You Editor
When the pilgrims came to America they came to seek religious freedom. They came to America to find a place where they could practice and speak of their religion without fear. Many years have passed since the pilgrims have come to flee persecution and while religious freedom is now a constitutional right, it is still not practiced my many. Recently, a Los Angeles City College student found himself having to stand up for his religion not only in front of a class, but also in front of his professor.
Jonathan Lopez prepared a speech for a class taught by John Matteson. According to Lopez, half way through his speech about G-d and miracles he was interrupted by Matteson and ridiculed him for his beliefs. Matteson went on to write on Lopez evaluation sheet that he should ask G-d for his grade. Lopez accuses Matteson of calling him a "facist bastard" and is suing him for viewpoint discrimination.
While often the classroom is not the place for religious talks, it is also not the place for ridicule because of religion. Lopez had every right to bring up his religion and the professor should have listened even if he did not agree. Professors should respect their students, and humans should respect each other. If Matteson did say and do everything Lopez accuses him of then he is a shame to his school and to colleges in general. America is a place where everyone is guaranteed religious freedom and freedom of speech. By ridiculing Lopez, Matteson was ridiculing both of those freedoms.
http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1876
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Administrators Should not Block the Truth
by Zhaleh Breen
About you editor
When a brick was thrown through a window of an Illinois public high school, George Fiorini, a newspaper photographer, rushed in with his camera. He wanted to take pictures for the paper, as this was definitely a news-worthy event. When the police asked to see his camera, he assumed that they wanted to use his pictures as evidence.
Unfortunately for him, the principle also felt as if she was entitled to the pictures. She confiscated his camera, and told him that he was not allowed to run the pictures, telling him that because there were students under 18 in the picture, they would run into legal issues. Somebody should have told said principle that students' rights still hold true inside school walls.
About you editor
When a brick was thrown through a window of an Illinois public high school, George Fiorini, a newspaper photographer, rushed in with his camera. He wanted to take pictures for the paper, as this was definitely a news-worthy event. When the police asked to see his camera, he assumed that they wanted to use his pictures as evidence.
Unfortunately for him, the principle also felt as if she was entitled to the pictures. She confiscated his camera, and told him that he was not allowed to run the pictures, telling him that because there were students under 18 in the picture, they would run into legal issues. Somebody should have told said principle that students' rights still hold true inside school walls.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Should sex talk be prohibited?
Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused
Last fall, a student newspaper in Montana started publishing a sex column in their newspaper. The column focused on student relationships of all different kinds. After this column was published, a law professor named Kristen Juras got upset and said that the newspaper needs to have new standards for hiring processes, and that the person who wrote this column should be fired immediately.
Juras said that she was not opposed to a column being written about specific sexual topics, however she saw this specific column as inappropriate. She feels that since the newspaper is payed for by tax dollars, it needs to be written "for educational purposes only", and that the columnist needs to be an expert in the topic in order to be able to write about it.
However, Juras is completely incorrect in her opinion on this issue. As a student newspaper with freedom of speech, all students have the right to write to express their opinions about any topics that they feel are relevant. In addition to this, sexual relationships are a huge topic among students, and many students are involved in sexual relationships. If anything, this column seems extremely relevant and very important for students to discuss.
To You Editor, Fused
Last fall, a student newspaper in Montana started publishing a sex column in their newspaper. The column focused on student relationships of all different kinds. After this column was published, a law professor named Kristen Juras got upset and said that the newspaper needs to have new standards for hiring processes, and that the person who wrote this column should be fired immediately.
Juras said that she was not opposed to a column being written about specific sexual topics, however she saw this specific column as inappropriate. She feels that since the newspaper is payed for by tax dollars, it needs to be written "for educational purposes only", and that the columnist needs to be an expert in the topic in order to be able to write about it.
However, Juras is completely incorrect in her opinion on this issue. As a student newspaper with freedom of speech, all students have the right to write to express their opinions about any topics that they feel are relevant. In addition to this, sexual relationships are a huge topic among students, and many students are involved in sexual relationships. If anything, this column seems extremely relevant and very important for students to discuss.
Hate speech v. free speech
By Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
Despite the common assumption that hate groups are obsolete because of recent civil rights advancements, such groups and their derogatory speech are still prevalent in today’s society.
Though membership in hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance (W.A.R.), Neo-Nazis, Black Separatists and Neo-Confederates used to be larger, more acceptable and “admirable,” such groups and their activities are no longer tolerable in mainstream American culture. But contrary to popular belief, these groups are still abundant and functioning throughout the nation. Although hate group membership is not as high as it once was during its peak, it has not drastically decreased.
Though hate speech supporters argue that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, it should be noted that there are times when it is not protected. Hate speech directly initiates violence when the purposefully harmful language employed turns into actions of violence; this is neither protected by the First Amendment nor should be argued to be protected by the First Amendment.
For example, in the late 1980s, Tom Metzger, the founder of W.A.R., was charged with inciting the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian immigrant residing in the United States. Even though Metzger did not directly murder Seraw, he was indirectly responsible for Seraw’s murder; the men who murdered Seraw were members of W.A.R., received W.A.R.’s literature that depicted singling out minorities and killing them, and had allegedly been verbally instructed on how to provoke minorities using hate speech so that a self-defense plea would excuse them from murder charges.
However, this speech led to actions that caused a murder, one among many. This is why Metzger and his hate group were found guilty of indirectly murdering Seraw. Examples such as this emphasize the fact that the First Amendment neither supports nor protects hate speech that causes violence.
To You Editor, Fused
Despite the common assumption that hate groups are obsolete because of recent civil rights advancements, such groups and their derogatory speech are still prevalent in today’s society.
Though membership in hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance (W.A.R.), Neo-Nazis, Black Separatists and Neo-Confederates used to be larger, more acceptable and “admirable,” such groups and their activities are no longer tolerable in mainstream American culture. But contrary to popular belief, these groups are still abundant and functioning throughout the nation. Although hate group membership is not as high as it once was during its peak, it has not drastically decreased.
Though hate speech supporters argue that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, it should be noted that there are times when it is not protected. Hate speech directly initiates violence when the purposefully harmful language employed turns into actions of violence; this is neither protected by the First Amendment nor should be argued to be protected by the First Amendment.
For example, in the late 1980s, Tom Metzger, the founder of W.A.R., was charged with inciting the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian immigrant residing in the United States. Even though Metzger did not directly murder Seraw, he was indirectly responsible for Seraw’s murder; the men who murdered Seraw were members of W.A.R., received W.A.R.’s literature that depicted singling out minorities and killing them, and had allegedly been verbally instructed on how to provoke minorities using hate speech so that a self-defense plea would excuse them from murder charges.
However, this speech led to actions that caused a murder, one among many. This is why Metzger and his hate group were found guilty of indirectly murdering Seraw. Examples such as this emphasize the fact that the First Amendment neither supports nor protects hate speech that causes violence.
Monday, March 9, 2009
2009 First Amendment Symposium
Hannah Nixon
Blog for March 13 Issue
Held in the Indiana State House on March 3rd, 2009, the First Amendment Symposium was crowded with dedicated high school journalists from all over Indiana. Joined by Bloomington High School North Principal Jeffry Henderson, he spoke about the freedom he offers to his media department at North. Governor Daniels spoke of the vitality of keeping newspapers alive, and Marybeth Tinker, a hero in the world of journalism, spoke of her great success with Freedom of Speech. Governor Daniels said, “The one chance we’ve got, I believe is in the newspapers in this state. This is an element of democracy we must not lose.”
Apart from these figures of authority, there were several high school students who spoke on topics imperative to the First Amendment. One spoke of integrity, one of truth, one of courage, and one of freedom. As each student spoke, their belief in the First Amendment rang in their words. One student in particular rang with plain noise. She began with sharing her first encounter with speaking her mind, something involving a lion and a storybook in first grade. She ended on a more serious example, and yet throughout the entirety of her speech she neglected to refer to the actual topic she was assigned: freedom. Her purpose in the end was to emphasize the importance of respecting all peoples’ views- whether in agreement with them or not. Because of the words spoken by this student on March 3, but more so because of the First Amendment, I am able to say that I believe she delivered a disastrous speech. Between unnecessary pauses, repeated uses of the word “like,” and rolling her eyes, she delivered a speech that wasn’t associated with freedom at all but rather with respect. Despite this small depression of the ceremony, the First Amendment Symposium was an overall success. The message of belief was illustrated through several winning essays, and the character trait of leadership was demonstrated by High School Journalist of the Year Aliya Mood.
The same week of the 2009 First Amendment Symposium the Rocky Mountain Newspaper died in Colorado after 150 years. Governor Daniels addressed this and stated his opinion saying, “The danger to democracy- that is the danger in American Journalism. Newspaper has been an effect of life, still is as far as I’m concerned.” Although Newspapers throughout the United States are failing, there is no less truth and no less vitality in the First Amendment. It lives on, and it is the work of journalists all through America that are keeping the dream alive.
Blog for March 13 Issue
Held in the Indiana State House on March 3rd, 2009, the First Amendment Symposium was crowded with dedicated high school journalists from all over Indiana. Joined by Bloomington High School North Principal Jeffry Henderson, he spoke about the freedom he offers to his media department at North. Governor Daniels spoke of the vitality of keeping newspapers alive, and Marybeth Tinker, a hero in the world of journalism, spoke of her great success with Freedom of Speech. Governor Daniels said, “The one chance we’ve got, I believe is in the newspapers in this state. This is an element of democracy we must not lose.”
Apart from these figures of authority, there were several high school students who spoke on topics imperative to the First Amendment. One spoke of integrity, one of truth, one of courage, and one of freedom. As each student spoke, their belief in the First Amendment rang in their words. One student in particular rang with plain noise. She began with sharing her first encounter with speaking her mind, something involving a lion and a storybook in first grade. She ended on a more serious example, and yet throughout the entirety of her speech she neglected to refer to the actual topic she was assigned: freedom. Her purpose in the end was to emphasize the importance of respecting all peoples’ views- whether in agreement with them or not. Because of the words spoken by this student on March 3, but more so because of the First Amendment, I am able to say that I believe she delivered a disastrous speech. Between unnecessary pauses, repeated uses of the word “like,” and rolling her eyes, she delivered a speech that wasn’t associated with freedom at all but rather with respect. Despite this small depression of the ceremony, the First Amendment Symposium was an overall success. The message of belief was illustrated through several winning essays, and the character trait of leadership was demonstrated by High School Journalist of the Year Aliya Mood.
The same week of the 2009 First Amendment Symposium the Rocky Mountain Newspaper died in Colorado after 150 years. Governor Daniels addressed this and stated his opinion saying, “The danger to democracy- that is the danger in American Journalism. Newspaper has been an effect of life, still is as far as I’m concerned.” Although Newspapers throughout the United States are failing, there is no less truth and no less vitality in the First Amendment. It lives on, and it is the work of journalists all through America that are keeping the dream alive.
Mary Beth Tinker speaks, inspires at First Amendment Symposium
Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor
The third annual First Amendment Symposium was held at the Indianapolis Court House on Tuesday, March 3. The symposium was started three years ago by the Indiana High School Press Association (IHSPA) as a way to bring schools together to celebrate the First Amendment.
This year's guest speaker was Mary Beth Tinker, famous for her participation in the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines . Set in Iowa, 1969, Tinker and her younger siblings wore black arm bands to school in an attempt to mourn those lost in and protest the Vietnam War. The students were suspended and, after the case was taken to the Supreme Court, were cleared due to the fact that their punishment demonstrated a heavy restriction on their First Amendment right to protest.
Forty years later, Tinker was welcomed warmly by fans and admirers at the State House. Tinker spoke on issues surrounding the First Amendment that existed in the past and are still relevant today, such as prior review and speech limitations in school. She discussed that, while unfair, some limitations cannot be lifted.
So, as they remembered the past, students celebrated the present. As Tinker spoke, shook hands and took photos, she reminded students how important it is to stand up for their rights, even when it seems the hardest.
For You Editor
The third annual First Amendment Symposium was held at the Indianapolis Court House on Tuesday, March 3. The symposium was started three years ago by the Indiana High School Press Association (IHSPA) as a way to bring schools together to celebrate the First Amendment.
This year's guest speaker was Mary Beth Tinker, famous for her participation in the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines . Set in Iowa, 1969, Tinker and her younger siblings wore black arm bands to school in an attempt to mourn those lost in and protest the Vietnam War. The students were suspended and, after the case was taken to the Supreme Court, were cleared due to the fact that their punishment demonstrated a heavy restriction on their First Amendment right to protest.
Forty years later, Tinker was welcomed warmly by fans and admirers at the State House. Tinker spoke on issues surrounding the First Amendment that existed in the past and are still relevant today, such as prior review and speech limitations in school. She discussed that, while unfair, some limitations cannot be lifted.
So, as they remembered the past, students celebrated the present. As Tinker spoke, shook hands and took photos, she reminded students how important it is to stand up for their rights, even when it seems the hardest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
