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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
