No More Political E-mails

In September 23rd news, students at Grambling State University are now denied basic 1st Amendment Rights. More specifically, Grambling's president Frank Pogue e-mailed all students prohibiting political expression through its university e-mail system. GSU's justification? Because the university has an e-mail policy that forbids usage of university e-mail for spreading hate, inciting violence, and among other things, political beliefs.
I find it puzzling that malicious intentions like "spreading hate" and "inciting violence" get lumped together with expressing political beliefs. I can agree that freedom of speech doesn't extend to promoting violence, but having political opinion is a fundamental 1st Amendment right. If there's an election coming up, why shouldn't students be allowed to have an intelligent conversation about it?
As Marjorie Esman, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana said, "'Grambling students have the right to make political statements, including those in support of political candidates.'"
I try to play devil's advocate, but it's hard to come up with a good reason for why students should be denied such a basic First Amendment right. It's not like these students are history professors or professional political analysts. Having a political opinion does not jeopardize the integrity of anything. Plus, these college students are already adults. They're at GSU to learn; why shouldn't they be allowed to express their political beliefs? In fact, they should be encouraged to share their political beliefs and to take an active role.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called on GSU to revise their restrictive policy on freedom of speech. Hopefully GSU realizes what the right thing to do is.

SL

Fight for the Right

By: Mike Moates
WASHINGTON- According to a recent press release from the Fight for the Right to Write group, created by Puyallup School District student newsmagazine editors cite a censorship case as proof that the school district needs to embrace a publications policy without prior review.
The story involved was one covering a recent lawsuit about another story one district school had printed in a previous issue.
Allie Rickard, author of the story, decided not to print her work after Mike Patterson, the attorney representing the school district, demanded she change portions of the story.
Emerald Ridge High School newspaper, the JagWire, printed a blank page with a box stating, “This story has been censored,” as a protest to the prior review policy it is under.
District Superintendent Tony Apostle made it clear that the school board does not plan to change its publications policy on prior review. However, if the student’s parents were to accept the legal and financial responsibilities the board would agree to work with Fight for the Right to Write.
Student Press Law Center attorney, Mike Hiestand, has been working with the group, guiding them through the legal hoops of creating a publications policy without prior review.
"I think [the school district] understood pretty clearly what the students' objections were and why they would be upset about not being able to report on very public information from a public trial," he said.
An editor of the JagWire, Amanda Wyma, feels that the policy of prior review that the district newsmagazines are currently under discourage students from covering complex and potentially controversial topics.
Wyma is senior and will be graduating soon. Once her and her fellow seniors leave Wyma is uncertain as to how the rest of the staff will handle the policies of the paper.
This kind of policy is an infringement on the student’s rights. If the district were to maintain this policy it could have drastic effects on the student’s freedom of

Hinds Community College, AKA “Vulgarity Police”

By Naama Levy

Freedom of speech regarding profanity and vulgarity is not a highly controversial issue in American universities. Most professors realize that their students, people in their twenties and thirties, are old enough to hear a curse word here and there without anyone panicking about it. However, evidently in some colleges swearing can get you in big trouble.
Hinds Community College recently gave a student twelve demerits- three short of suspension- for swearing after class. 29-year-old Isaac Rosenbloom stayed after class with a few other students to discuss grades with the instructor and at some point he said that his grade is “going to f–k up my entire GPA.” According to Rosenbloom, the instructor, Barbara Pyle, began yelling and threatening to give him a detention. Rosenbloom replied that detention is not a method of punishment at HCC, so Pyle sent him to the dean. She then submitted a disciplinary complaint against Rosenbloom, arguing that “this language was not to be tolerated [and] he could not say that under any circumstances [including in] the presence of the other students.”
Rosenbloom was charged with “flagrant disrespect” and was expelled from Pyle’s class. A record of the decision was also put in his student file. He turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). FIRE argued that the college’s speech policies are unconstitutional and that Rosebloom’s punishment was not justified, especially since the incident happened outside of class. “Outside of official class time, HCC has no authority to punish a student for cursing in this way or for being ‘disrespectful,’” said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program.
FIRE is absolutely right in protecting Rosenbloom’s freedom of speech. First of all, it’s absurd to treat grown adults like elementary school kids and to try to ban profanity when people obviously use it all the time. Secondly, the instructor simply did not have the authority to do this; she could ask her students to watch their language, but she cannot punish them for using words she does not find adequate. The college crossed its limits of power by penalizing a student for such a thing. Their policies quite obviously violate the First Amendment. If the student had begun shouting obscenities and disrupting class, it would be a different story, it wouldn’t even be a First Amendment issue. But Rosenbloom did not shout and did not disturb any campus activity. Not only was it immature and out of place for Pyle to try to control her students’ speech, but it’s not her decision to make.

Business First

Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer
Jonathon I. Katz was removed from the group selected by the Obama Administration to find a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico due to controversial postings on his personal website this month. He reportedly included postings defending homophobia and questioning the value of racial diversity efforts. According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, these writings have become a distraction to their efforts in repairing the Gulf. Chu was aware of Katz’s website before bringing him on board. When the department got wind of these remarks, sparks began to fly, eventually leading to Katz’s dismissal.
On the one hand, the department had reason to kick Katz out. There was no binding legal contract and he was affecting their work. On the other hand, Katz is entitled to the freedom of speech. His personal life should not be of concern to his coworkers.
Should his website have even been taken into account? Who felt the need to even bring this up? Why was it necessary? Were grown men incapable of putting aside their opinions in order to finish this important job? It takes tolerance and a certain level of maturity in order to execute the first amendment properly. Acceptance is crucial in any workplace. No one likes everybody that they work with. People are expected to be mature about their work. Everyone has skeletons in their closets.
The job of cleaning up the oil spill is crucial and requires the most experienced and well trained of people to complete. What if Katz was the man they needed? This was completely overlooked because of something as trivial as a website. The situation might be of less importance if Katz worked in a small office selling paper, but the work that Katz was doing was vital to our environment.
The workplace should be completely separate from someone’s private life. Katz’s coworkers needed to man-up and finish the job, putting aside their differences. Let’s be grown ups about this.

Authorities seize riot photos in an “intimidating” and inappropriate manner

Scott Wylie Hoover

Katie Malone, a Student Press Law Center staff writer reported on April 19 that the newsroom of James Madison University student newspaper in Virginia was entered by authorities with a search warrant. Photographs in-interest taken by “The Breeze” were seized on Friday April 16, by Rockingham Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst. Garst and 10 police officers conducted a search warrant on Friday morning and seized all published and unpublished photographs from a April 10 "Springfest" riot.
The Breeze’s editor-in-chief was notified about his request from the office of Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office on Thursday April 15. She told them that it is the newspaper’s policy that they can only release photos published on its website.
The authorities showed up on Friday morning threatening to seize all cameras, computers and documents unless the 900-some photos were handed over.
Currently, the photographs have been handed-over to a third party until further investigations.
Not only did the Attorney’s office have no right to conduct their search in this manner, they had no right to even take the photos. It was evident that they the Breeze was not prepared for this act of intrusion. With intimidating factors the staff did hand over the photographs.
Many campus newspapers have spoken out about this conflict. The Cavalier Daily of The University of Virginia said that “the practical justification for newspapers to protect materials and information like photos, anonymous sources and the like. It obviously would threaten a publication's integrity to release such information to law enforcement and certainly would discourage many sources from contributing. Whenever a newspaper photographer shows up to an event, students should not have to feel as though he may be collecting evidence for a future police report."
It is unsettling and frustrating to see authority figures act in a threatening responsive manner. This type of treatment is inappropriate; the attorney’s office should have handled this in a private manner with the newspaper, stating the seriousness of the situation with the Editor-in-chief and Managing editor, rather than making it a national dilemma. Negotiations can be handled privately, without confrontation, but when authority’s figures (10 police officers) “intimidate” the situation, then resolution seems sour and forever-pending.

In Appreciation for Those Who Respect First Amendment Rights For High School Students...

Belle Kim

In Washington, student editors at three Puyallup School District high schools are pushing to establish a publications policy that doesn’t include prior review. In Emerald Ridge High School newspaper, JagWire, an empty space was published that states, “This story has been censored.” The absent story covered a lawsuit between four students, who claimed they didn’t give consent to JagWire to print personal information about them in a February 2008 article, and the school district. The writer of the said article decided that she would withhold her story when Mike Patterson, an attorney representing the district in the lawsuit, prior reviewed it and demanded that changes are made. The staffers then emailed Superintendent Tony Apostle and school board members on their proposal to work together to create a new publications policy. Apostle told them that he would be willing to work with them only if their parents agreed to accept financial responsibility for the student publications. The students are willing to make the agreement if doing so will allow them to return to an open forum status and a publications policy without prior review and prior restraint.

Whenever I read stories like this in www.splc.org, I always become very indignant that the rights of these students as journalists to pursue the truth and educate their readers are so blatantly ignored. High school is supposed to prepare us for the real world; well, in the real world, or in the United States, at least, there is supposed to be no such thing as prior review or restraint or censorship.

I also think about how lucky I am to be attending a school in which the adviser, principal, superintendent, and board members don’t feel it is necessary to control a student publication. They are always supportive of us and respect our rights to cover whatever we feel is newsworthy. Even if we choose to write stories in which they are presented in bad lights, they understand the value of the First Amendment and the importance of good journalism.

Because of my experiences at North, I believe I am prepared to advance out into the world as a serious journalist who uncovers social injustices and corruption and brings about positive change. I will have a significant advantage over those students whose school districts are much less open-minded. When I think about this, I feel extremely grateful to everyone at MCCSC for making it possible for me to pursue good education.

Would You Say That Around Your Grandmother?

In the English language, as well as all other languages, there are words that most can agree either shouldn't be said, or are classified as "inappropriate language."

Any person in the world, if asked, could give you a work that their culture deems inappropriate.

The same also goes for groups of people. Some groups have select phrases that spark controversy. For instance, in the GLBT community, the phrase, "That's so gay," in reference to something being dumb, is considered highly offensive.

What most people don't know is that journalists also have a "trigger" word, so to speak, and that word is "censorship."

Ask any journalist the dirtiest word in the English language, the first word out of their mouth should be censorship.

Dictionary.com defines the root word, censor, as, "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds."

Imagine what would happen if everything in the world has to go through some form of censorship before being published or shown. Most, if not all, TV shows, books, and plays would be non-existent, because nothing produced by a human can satisfy everyone, no matter how great.

Censorship in media is much more relevant to the journalism. In student media, this form of censorship is called prior review. Those two words are the two most dreaded words to any faculty and staff involved in a student newspaper and Mounds View High School , in Minnesota heard those exact words.

Their newspaper was first considered for prior review when they printed a story that named two students who were disciplined for posting a "joke picture of their teacher on Facebook."

The principal of the school was interviewed for the story, but decided to ask the story to be pulled five days after the review, after the papers had been sent to the printer. When the paper was brought to school, Principal Julie Wikelius threw away the papers claiming it was, “due to concerns about releasing students' private disciplinary information without parental consent.”

Prior review was then granted by the administration over the student newspaper, The Viewer.

Editor-in-chief Christina Xai believes she knows why the administration is putting the paper on prior review. "I do not believe that prior review is the solution. I think that prior review will limit us from learning responsible journalism... If the school imposes prior review, I am very concerned that this will lead to the administration censoring what we write. I know that the administration said their goal is fact checking, but I feel this will become their excuse to control the content of our student newspaper."

-Whitney Taylor

Editors Go Too Far With Prank At University of Utah

by Caitlin McCoy

Nine senior editors at the University of Utah, took there pranking capabilities way too far. Writing for the The Daily Utah Chronicle, these students annually make a joke out of an article when the school year is coming to a close. This year, they decided to make words out of the drop caps. However, the words spelled out were not funny or appropriate. They were very offensive and the administration at the University of Utah will not let these students slide by. It is said that they have violated the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities which covers actions that are an “intentional disruption or obstruction of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary proceedings or university activities."

To get this situation resolved, the nine students must have a meeting with the Office of the Dean of Students. Until the meeting, these students cannot receive their diploma although they can walk. However, Adam Goldstein, the attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center, disagrees. He believes that the students have the right to graduate regardless because the first amendment protects the right to offend people.

Goldstein’s point regarding the first amendment is not a strong one. Yes, the first amendment ensures writers the ability to publish their opinions but that doesn’t mean writers should take advantage of it in a negative light. Respect, integrity, and principles are all key factors that should be standards no matter what free speech laws allow. I believe that Goldstein is being too lenient. The students should be expected to act properly to a certain extent. It is very reasonable that the school plans on punishing these students for conducting themselves so poorly. Pranks can be funny but this definitely crossed the line. These college seniors should be beyond these types of pranks and understand that they are not sending a good message to outside readers about the school.

Active Advocates

by Victoria Ison



We act like being informed is enough.

We act like if we put up enough posters, write enough blog posts, and bring it up enough times in conversation, then the first amendment won’t be forgotten, and it won’t be threatened.

Except we’re only acting.

It doesn’t matter how much we advertise if nobody pays attention. If everybody walks by the posters in the hallway, if nobody clicks on to this blog, if listeners close their ears when we talk about the first amendment, then our freedoms, while not made meaningless, lose power.

It is not enough to pretend that advertising is enough.

While there is certainly much meaning in the simple act of exercising the freedoms of speech and assembly and press and all those that the first amendment encompasses, there is much more meaning associated with the appropriate reception of the actions by which we exercise those freedoms.

For instance, it is one thing just to talk. Talking out loud is important. It can help a person work through his or her thoughts and feelings. But just talking can never be as meaningful as speaking. Speaking, to and with other people, allows room for outside input. It leads to meaningful conversation. Talking is passive; speaking is active.

We must be active advocates for the first amendment.

We can not just put up posters and hope that someday somebody walking by will stop, see the poster, read it, and think about the importance of the freedoms this amendment ensures. This may very well happen from time to time, but it will not happen every time.

Certainly, putting up posters is an excellent thing to do, an excellent way to advertise something that needs and merits but doesn’t exactly demand advertisement. Sometimes putting up posters, or performing whatever other kind of passive advertisement, is the appropriate thing to do.

But sometimes we need to do more.

Just as we would want our newspapers, our petitions, our assemblies – all of the things we are able to produce through the powers of the first amendment – to be heeded attentively and respectfully, we should want our expressions about the first amendment received with soberness. Just as we would create our newspapers and petitions worthy of that reception, we must write and speak and advertise about the first amendment in a way that is worthy of the attention we hope it will receive.

If we want to ensure the preservation of the rights given in the first amendment, we must advocate actively for them.

Woman Jailed for Wearing Vulgar T-Shirt

By: William Liao
BHSN Fused

So the title pretty much says what the whole situation entails, which is to say that, for one reason or another, a woman was jailed for wearing a t-shirt that was deemed, well, vulgar.

Before I begin any further commentary, here's what happened:
20-year-old Jennifer LaPenta was going to court to settle some traffic tickets. Upon settling the issue with the judge, the judge noticed her shirt which read: "I have the pussy so I make the rules."

The judge found her shirt to be inappropriate. After becoming aware of this, LaPenta offered to change shirts, however the judge said it was too late, and ordered her to jail.

---- End Case

Let's talk about the grounds that dictated the ruling. The judge said her attire was inappropriate, which to some extent, justifies an alteration to her appearance.

However, the judge said it was too late! (key issue, there)

This is a classic case in which judge assumes more power than he/she actually has. The judge's job is to dictate the outcome of an issue in accordance to the law, true. However, in conjunction with this, it also the judge's responsibility to dictate the means of handling the outcome, and to make sure that they correlate within the line ethics.

The ethics of the situation seem a little distorted, don't you think? The woman comes into court, for traffic tickets. She, therefore, was not aware prior to entering the room that her shirt would be deemed in appropriate (while one might have assumed, that is irrelevant). And upon walking into this room, the judge reveals to her this knowledge, and before she is ever given a chance to alter her behavior, she is firmly told that it is "too late."

The key issue within the whole ethics of this situation is in regard to the woman's circumstances. She was not aware that her shirt would be inappropriate, and the moment she found out, without even having a chance to alter her behavior, she's given a jail sentence!?

So what's to make of this?
This case is the consequence of a failure in ethics. It's the consequence when one over-assumes one's power.

The judge's actions do not reflect his job description. His lack of correspondence with the necessary ethics within the matter leads one to believe that he perhaps had a moral inclination, or some sort of hidden agenda behind this ruling.

It's an ethical failure. Period.

Original link:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=22923

Freedom of speech upheld at Emerald Ridge HS

On April 21, a jury found the Puyallup School District innocent of charges that they “invaded the privacy of four students.” The whole issue came up because Emerald Ridge HS (in Washington) included four students’ names and sexual histories in a story about oral sex. The four students, all who have graduated, sued the school district for between 500,000 and 1 million dollars in damage, claiming that “their reputations were ruined.”
Even if the second part is true, it doesn’t mean that the high school newspaper (or whatever official organization the students are suing) is guilty of anything. Dallas Welker, the kid who conducted the interviews, got consent before publishing their names. That’s pretty much the only piece of information that the jury needed to make their decision. Those four students could’ve, and probably should’ve, told Welker that they want what they say about themselves to be kept out of the newspaper. The fact that they didn’t, and gave their consent, makes their lawsuit after the fact totally illegitimate. The jury saw this as well, and cleared the school district of doing anything wrong.
Welker herself summed up the heart of the issue well when she told The News Tribune, “If we want to build professional journalists, we need to treat them like that from a young age and give them the rights that all professional journalists have.” In the real world, articles on sensitive topics that involve personal stuff happen all the time. Just think about all the magazines that interview celebrities, or news stories that examine corruption. Should there be a roadblock to all those things just because the subjects of those stories suddenly decide they don’t like it? I don’t think so.
The jury did a great job in ensuring Freedom of Speech in the Puyallup School District.
-Siyang

Rock the Boat

by Lucy Farmer, Fused staff writer

The staff of Notre Dame’s student newspaper, The Observer, recently lost their assistant managing editor, Kara King.
King resigned from the staff after taking responsibility for the publishing of a crude cartoon that joked about violence towards the gay community. The students who created the cartoon issued an apology and claim that they were only trying to shed light on the violence towards homosexuals on Notre Dame’s campus.
Whether or not King would have been asked to leave without a resignation is unclear. If she was fired, that would have been the decision of her superiors; the law would not have intervened. Nevertheless, this is a first amendment issue.
What King allowed to happen was fully protected by the first amendment. Despite the fact the fact that it was considered tasteless and vulgar, it was legal. The Observer clearly wanted to protect their image and reputation as a paper.
This brings up the question, how far is too far? Is there a point where respect for others should intervene with a publication? Is there a status quo for material?
The first amendment allows the public to openly discuss and broadcast their opinion without consequence. The individuals on The Observer were trying to make a point and strike a chord with their readers, forcing them to address the issue of violence towards gays. This cartoon has made headline news and forced a resignation while shedding light on a very sensitive subject. That’s what the first amendment is all about.
This law is not a justification for discrimination, but without the right to publish strong opinions and messages the public would be lost. It’s important to continue to publish things that raise eyebrows and cause a riot. These are the things that will eventually make a difference and keep people on their toes.

Irony

by Belle Kim, copy editor of Fused

In Lower Merion High School of Pennsylvania, students' rights to privacy were completely ignored when the school-issued laptops had installments of webcams that secretly captured thousands of images of students in private settings without the students ever having consented. The webcams took pictures of students' website history and online chat excerpts, as well as those of students in their bedrooms while they were asleep or addressing. The images are then sent to network servers at the school district.

Carol Cafiero, the administrator running the program, agreed with an employee in saying that the screen shots and photos are "a little LMSD soap opera." She said, "I know, I love it!"effort to promote more "engaged and active learning and enhanced student achievement," according to Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley.

Such goings-on are a clear violation of students' rights to privacy. I found it ironic that the school administrators, who are usually trying to enforce prior restraint, prior review, and censorship because they are afraid that what student journalists may uncover would make the schools look bad, are the ones snooping around in the lives of their students with no clear motive that would pardon such actions. First Amendment is about the freedom of press. It is about the freedom journalists have to inform their readers about what is going on in the world they live in. It is the right of the readers to know what is going on in the world they live in. It does NOT give school administrators the right to pry into students' private lives without consent. And just think--if the student journalists of Lower Merion High School decide to print an article in which they discuss the wrongdoings of these school officials, it will almost certainly be censored.

Because it's okay for students to have their rights completely violated, but not ok for schools to look bad.

Oh, the irony.

Prior Review is the First Step Toward Censorship

MINNESOTA-- Mounds View High School's student newspaper The Viewer has refused to publish and distribute the most recent issue of the paper due to conflicts involving prior review. The article in question involves two students who are facing disciplinary consequences for posting a picture of their teacher on Facebook.

Julie Wikelius, Principal of Mound's View High School, confiscated the papers because she believed they violated the schools policy on student discipline privacy. Christina Xia, the editor-in-chief of The Viewer, claims she had permission to publish the information she received about the students.

Administrators claimed Xia was in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). In order to publish and distribute the issue by the end of the day Xia obtained consent forms from the parents of the students involved.

Student Press Law Center Minnesota attorney Steve Aggregard offered his counsel to the The Viewer.

The paper is still being designed and created but until the clause of prior review is removed from the student publication no new issues will come out.

"I do not believe that prior review is the solution. I think that prior review will limit us from learning responsible journalism... If the school imposes prior review, I am very concerned that this will lead to the administration censoring what we write. I know that the administration said their goal is fact checking, but I feel this will become their excuse to control the content of our student newspaper," Xia said.

Prior review is a particularly difficult process to enact. It becomes hard to draw the line between simple edits and full out censorship. Will prior review turn into censorship? If it does where will our publications be? The filter put on publications by prior review will ultimately have a detrimental effect on journalism.
--Mike Moates--

First Amendment to the Rescue

By Naama Levy

Newspapers, along with all forms of publications, represent a community larger than just the individuals who work for them. When writing a column, or doing anything that speaks for the publication as a whole, people take a bigger responsibility than most realize. Many use the “I’m entitled to my own opinion” excuse, but that does not justify saying whatever happens to pop into one’s head without preceding consideration. Yes, the First Amendment provides freedom of speech and entitles you to your own opinion, but publications and individuals representing them must be aware of the consequences of the material they publish.
Recently at Indiana University, the Odyssey, “a weekly lifestyle newspaper focused on the Greek community at Indiana University,” ran a column titled “Rating Girls” by senior Yale Reardon. The article angered many due to its sexist system of evaluating women solely by their appearance on a scale of 1-10. Reardon used phrases like “A two is not much better than a one. She is god awful ugly as well. No matter how many drinks you have, she won't look hotter or thinner.”
It seemed that Reardon did not realize or didn’t care that these offensive words would represent not only him, but the newspaper he was writing for. And not only was he making The Odyssey look bad, but he was representing the entire fraternity community. Reardon’s introduction paragraph explains: “One of my favorite things to do with my friends is to argue about what number a girl is.” By depicting himself as a narrow-minded moron, Reardon intensified his own already negative stereotype. Sentences like “She doesn’t need a personality because her face and body make up for it. These make ideal girlfriends and will get you mad bro points out the wazoo” make the writer, the Greek community, and the newspaper staff look like a bunch of arrogant jerks. This is taking humor too far to the point where it’s not even funny but just degrading and stupid.
The column was published in the humor section, but it’s fair to assume that most readers found the article more appalling than funny and that more than anything it reinforced people’s revulsion of frats.
If the content of the column is not bad enough, Reardon’s grammar mistakes and pathetically poor writing abilities confirm the stereotype he so bluntly reveals. It’s not a matter of freedom of speech when all you have to say is sexist and offensive rubbish.
When one day Readon gets fired for expressing his bloated mind irresponsibly, his boss won’t care that he is entitled to his own opinion. Some opinions are better kept than shared on the pages of newspapers. And don’t bring up the First Amendment when the purpose behind your article is to gain “bro points”.

High school newspaper halts publication in protest of prior review

by Scott Wylie Hoover


Staff members of a Minnesota town high school were halted of publication their school paper until prior review is lifted from the school district. The Viewer, was stopped for prior review after the paper reported a story naming two student who were formally disciplined after posting a “joke” picture of their teacher on Facebook.
The reporter interviewed the principle of the school for the story. However, she did not see the article until it was published and ready for distributing. The principle contacted the advisor about pulling the story but the paper had been sent for publication.
The reason the principle wanted the story pulled was due to concerns about releasing the student’s names and private disciplinary information without parental consent. In order for the students to distribute the paper before the end of the day they had to obtain permission from the parents, which they did. However, the administration is still upholding their standard of prior review of future newspapers.

First things first: posting pictures on pictures of your teachers on Facebook, in any form, is a no-go. Schools have wired, and unclear, policies regarding social networking cites, so just to be safe, don’t do it.
Referring to the article, it is a shame that the administration had to step in and distract the distribution of the paper. However they did claim the article was in violation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Student Press Law Center from Minnesota attorney Steve Aggregaard at Bassford Remele, P.A. said it was it makes no legal or logical sense to equate a newspaper to an educational record.
“doing that would be a chilling effect on college and high school newspapers nationwide at public schools and that certainly is not what Congress intended by enacting FERPA," Aggregaard said.
It isn’t that fact the paper review this issue, and possibly had a “legitimate” excuse too. It is, that because of this one incident, they want to review all future distributions of the publication. Review is one item, censorship is the other.

You Can’t Handle the Truth!

By Nick Hobbs

The Principal and editors of Dexter High School, Michigan, are defending their school newspaper, The Squall, from members of the community who are upset with its content. Co-editor of the school newspaper, Alex Everard, defended the newspaper and its content at a school board meeting. Everard hopes that there will be no alterations in the school’s authority over the students’ publication.
The community’s unhappiness with the newspaper is evident and there has been a plethora of anonymous blogging criticizing the school newspaper. There have been statements from community members saying that The Squall contained "frank sexual talk," "promotion of drugs and alcohol," "illegal gambling", and also had "tabloid journalism." Parents of the community complained, citing these examples when they attended a school board meeting on April 12.
During the meeting, Everard emphasized how the newspaper was simply reporting. He stated that there problems that go on within the school and that is undeniable. He argued that there is a difference between promoting these problems and reporting on them, and the staff members of the school newspaper were simply reporting on these somewhat controversial topics.
This, to me, is a very unfortunate situation. This newspaper is under intense scrutiny because the public doesn’t want to read or know about the dark side of Dexter High School . I believe it is wrong that the school newspaper is undergoing review and may have some of its freedom from school authority taken away simply because the parents want to remain oblivious to the cold, hard truth of what their children do.
This possible infringement on the freedom of press is very unfortunate and hopefully the school board meeting will review the newspaper and take an unbiased stance on the subject. The school board should not be bullied by the parents into altering a publication. Unless there is an actual problem with the content of the newspaper, there should be no alterations in the freedom of the student publication.

At What Point is a School's Authority Limited?

By Caitlin McCoy

The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided that two cases should be ruled again this time, by the full court. The cases dealt with a similar scenario: a student used an off-campus computer to make a fake MySpace as their principal. The principal was portrayed as disrespectful and immoral as he was described as a person to use drugs and engage in other disdainful behavior. The two cases are Layshock v. Hermitage School District, this case involving a high school student, and J.S. v Blue Mountain School District, involving a student in middle school.
The conflict aroused when the decision-making of these cases contradicted each other. The decision concerning Layshock stated that the student has the right to post this material because it was not on the school campus. Their opinion in this case is that the power of the school authority cannot cross its bounds. However, the case involving J.S. was ruled differently. In this case, the decision was that the school has the authority to discipline students for such actions.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the students in both cases and Sarah Rose, a staff attorney for ACLU has stated that both cases will be looked at afresh by the entire 3rd court. Her hope is that the decision will be in favor of the students.
Personally, I wish this type of controversy did not exist. No matter if the rights of the students who posted this material are protected or not, they should have enough respect for themselves and those in charge to not make a MySpace mocking their principals. They should be ashamed for doing this, but unfortunately it happened and must be dealt with. I can see both sides of the matter, school authority should not feel in control of the matter because it was off-campus, but students should not express such disrespect. It is a disappointing controversy and it will be interesting to see how it is ruled.

Sunshine Week

A citizen's right to know and journalists' rights to report are threatened every day, say the organizers of Sunshine Week.They planned the week long program to highlight freedom of information issues and emphasize the importance of open government.In Washington,D.C to mark the Sunshine Week, the SPLC wanted to take a look into college and university's rules when dealing with suicide threats and attempts. The idea was inspired by a study called "College Students in Crisis: Preventing Campus Suicides and Protecting Civil Rights."
Students who attempt suicide or make suicide threats on the campus will be removed from the housing on campus. In some cases they can even be kicked out of school. SPLC asked for info on all rules, regulations, procedures or guidelines concerning the removal of students from campus housing on the grounds of suicidal tendencies or suicide attempts. A open records request is some what of a challenge. Out of the 35 schools they sent requests to only 23 of them responded. Out of the 14 private schools 12 denied the requests. SPLC is still following up with the schools for more info for the project.
I think that the schools should give SPLC their requests because what is it going to hurt? SPLC is trying to conduct a project that will encourage open government and use open records to expand journalistic horizons. This is a serious topic anyways. You hear a lot about college student commit suicide or attempting it. Colleges should have strict rules on what happens to the students if they do this,because it may make them think twice before attempting it ever again. If we knew how all the colleges handled this kind of situation it could help the other schools. It could help because they make learn that they need stricter rules, or may find that another schools rules sound like they work better. In a way it would benefit the schools and i think they should all have to provide that info to SPLC. I even think the public has a right to know what the rules are if this situation takes place.
-Lindsay McKnight

Va. Can Ban Alcohol Ads in College Newspapers

Written by: William Liao

In a recent 2-1 vote, Virginia Tech's newspaper, Collegiate Times, was revoked the right to implement alcohol ads in its production. Why? Because the state claimed that such an action would lower underaged drinking rates.

First of all, this case just screams "first amendment lawsuit!" There aren't any hidden nuts and bolts involved in the equation, and it's written in fine print on the constitution, that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. These blatantly clear terms seem to lack sufficient application in today's society and this case is a perfect example.

And to be clear, this is a law, now. It doesn't just apply to Virginia Tech, but every college in Virginia.

So the question right now is: who's right? Does the state have the right, does the college have the right?

I think in all cases there's seems to be a clear conclusion, and while not all of these conclusions turn out to be the correct ones (in my opinion), this is one such case that does have a clear and rational outcome. Here's why:

The state operated on with good intentions, and I have no reason to argue against them. However, the state is trying to do one thing it cannot, which is to try to fill every hole and crack in its community, single-handedly--underaged drinking being one of them. Yes, it is a safety concern, and yes, it is a rational one--but will banning advertisements make a measurable difference? Chances are (and by chances, I mean you can bet on it), probably not.

For the sake of justifying this argument, let me explain why there is likely to be little or no effect on underaged drinking. First and foremost, the newspaper is just one form of media, it gets around, it goes around. However, guess what, so does the television, the internet, peer-to-peer interaction, etc. Underaged drinking is fueled far more by everything else than it is the newspaper, and unless the state wants to try to take a full-blown course of action, and eliminate all alcoholic influences, it should just step aside, and let everybody carry on their own business.

If I haven't made it clear, then let me make it clear now: the school should be allowed to install the ad, the state should not be allowed to ban it. Not only does the college have the constitutional literature by its side, but it also has a fairly rational argument to make which is to say that banning the college ad will not satisfy, to even a measurable degree, the states intention to lower underaged drinking rates through the banning of the ad.

It's about free speech, not the money

In 2007, Paris Hilton sued cards company Hallmark over a greeting card that sort of featured her. The card was called “Paris’s First Day as a Waitress,” and showed Hilton saying to the customer, “That’s hot” — a phrase she used frequently in her reality television show, “The Simple Life.” The inside of the card reads: “Have a smokin’ hot birthday.” It’s basically a spoof of everything we’d expect to see spoofed about her.
However, Hilton wasn’t too happy that Hallmark did this without her permission, claiming “misappropriation of publicity” under Californian law. Two courts refused to dismiss the lawsuit, but whatever the legal process is, I honestly hope that the ending isn’t a “misappropriation of publicity” conclusion, because that would be setting a very wrongful precedent in a case of First Amendment rights.
Hallmark creating a card truthfully (although a few may disagree) depicting what Hilton factually is like. Is someone honestly going to tell me that what Hilton says in the card isn’t characteristic of her, or of what she’s said in the past? Hallmark has every right to create a spoof of her when at the very least, they’ve created a cartoony-version of her, put her in a made-up situation, and added some phrases for the sole purpose of creating an interesting birthday card. In terms of First Amendment rights, it would be as if a newspaper wasn’t allowed to create caricatures or political cartoons of notable people and would get sued for it. How does that make any sense? Part of the First Amendment is being able to incorporate other people in order to deliver a message. It’s ridiculous to say that we can’t freely do so.
Furthermore, in the article it is noted that the “classical” misappropriation case involves the celebrity who is “embarrassed or humiliated by unwanted displays of his or her image.” This is clearly not the case here. This is not a hypothetical case of Hilton drinking out of a beer bong and yelling “this stuff rocks” while totally drunk. That would be false endorsement, and I can understand why someone would have to ask her permission first, but that is not the case here. With the birthday card, she is not endorsing anything, and certainly nothing “embarrassing or humiliating.” This whole lawsuit revolves around Hiliton’s desire to get some cash out of Hallmark, and money shouldn’t get in the way of our First Amendment rights.
-Siyang Liu

A Question of Distaste

by Victoria Ison


A news brief in the March 22 issue of Time Magazine chronicles a clash of the freedom of speech and poor taste.

In 2006, Albert Snyder’s son, a Marine, was killed in Iraq. The ensuing funeral failed to provide the father the comfort or closure he needed. That’s because Snyder’s funeral was chosen as a protest point for the Westboro Baptist Church. The organization, run by Fred Phelps out of Topeka, Kansas, is aggressively anti-gay. According to Time, its members believe that American troops die in combat because the United States accepts and allows homosexuality. Members of the church raise awareness of their beliefs by attending military funerals and holding signs that say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

When Albert Snyder sued the church for its members’ funeral behavior, he won almost $11 million in emotional distress damages. But that amount was later reduced, and, later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified the ruling. In September 2009, the Court termed the church’s behavior “repugnant,” but, according to Time, could not deny its legality.

Now the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the Snyder v. Phelps case. The Court’s decision this fall will determine whether offensive protests like the Westboro Church’s are actually protected by the First Amendment.

It may be tempting to hope the Court decides in favor of Snyder. However, such a decision would have dramatic effects on the breadth of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. It is important that the First Amendment be as far from exclusionary as possible; to ensure maximum, necessary rights, it must encompass all speech, no matter how distasteful.

What should actually be hoped is that individuals and organizations like the Westboro Church will recognize an age-old principle: gifts that are not respectfully acknowledged will be scarce in the future. Unfortunately, the freedom of speech is a gift, not an inalienable right. Thanks to the Westboro Baptist Church’s repugnant actions, the Supreme Court may now limit this gift.

Apparently simple values like respect are missing from the church’s Sunday School curricula.

The threat of "libel tourism"

In recent news (Feb. 16, 2010), the Senate is looking to hold a hearing on Feb. 23
to examine something called "libel tourism." The world
"tourism" suggests crossing national borders, and that is exactly
what this libel issue is about. The question of the hearing amounts to
"Are foreign libel lawsuits threatening Americans' First Amendment rights?"

Rachel Ehhrenfeld, who wrote a book about funded terrorism, found the answer to this
question first-hand when she was sued in British courts by a Saudi businessman.
It is good that this hearing is taking place, for the issue of First Amendment
isn't something that just resides in America alone. We cannot be simply
complacent with just First Amendment guarantees within our borders, for this is
a global world. In some other countries, the First Amendment is more of just
"a guideline." In some countries, it doesn't exist at all. In such
instances, what happens when American journalism is met an audience that don't
value the ideas of First Amendment like we do? Well, the result can be what
Ehrenfeld experienced: prosecution.

Journalism and the First Amendment go hand in hand. If we are dissuaded from journalism
based on the threat of foreign lawsuits, then our First Amendment rights are
threatened just the same. We have to keep in mind that "libel" to a
politician in North Korea is not the same as how we think of "libel"
in America. What is happening now is that lawsuits are being fought in the
"playing field" of whoever feels offended--in other words, it's
abroad.

This is simply nonsensical. A piece of journalism written by someone in one's country
should be subject to the same journalistic standards of that person's country.
It shouldn't be judged in the hands of whoever's offended, and by that
country's laws, as it threatens our First Amendment right to free speech and
practicing journalism freely.
-SL

The Ethics of Journalism

by Belle Kim

During the last issue of Fused, I wrote a feature story covering the budget cuts that are taking place in the MCCSC. Aside from writing 2300 words on the topic, I also wished to include a section listing the names of teachers who had teaching experiences of five years or less at North, as they could potentially be affected by the change. To have access to the teachers’ seniority list, all I had to do was to fill out a form requesting to see public records and do with the information as I wish. Though many high school newspapers suffer from censorship and prior review, Bloomington High School North respects the First Amendment. Because the teacher’s seniority list was public information, I could just publish it in the newspaper.

I didn’t take that course of action at the advice of my newspaper adviser. The issue was a sensitive one involving the livelihood of others and deserved to be handled with care. If I just published the information without speaking to these teachers first, students and teachers alike may focus on whether or not I should have printed it instead of focusing on what the article was actually about. I thus went around the school for several hours to speak to teachers with 5 years or less experience, and asked permission to print their name, picture, and certification area. Some said yes, some said no. I respected their choices.

Through this experience, I learned that though the First Amendment does guarantee journalists rights from anything that abridges the freedom of press, we must also consider the ethics of journalism. When writing on an issue that involves the life of others, we must be extremely sensitive and recognize that just as we have the rights to present accurate information without persecution from the government, people have rights to privacy and safety. The goal of a journalist should be to pursue the truth in order to inform readers and help create positive change. Through this experience, I realized that creating controversy that involves the lives of real people is unnecessary and unethical.

All Eyes Are On You

Lucy Farmer

The school system has a duty to protect its students from physical and emotional harm. They are responsible for monitoring student’s behavior in order to protect other students. Parents drop their children off at school knowing that their child will be safe while under the administration’s watch. But there is a fine line between basic protection and the infringement of the student’s first amendment rights.
In Philadelphia, Lower Merion School District officials are spying on their students inside their homes with the web cameras installed in the personal laptops issued to every high school student. One particular student, Blake J. Robbins, has filed a lawsuit against the district after his principal accused him of doing inappropriate things in his home. The principal used the photographic evidence from the web cam as proof. The administration claimed that the laptops were issued in order for the students to have 24/7 access to school sites. But in reality, they wanted 24/7 access to the student’s private lives.
It is unnerving and disturbing to know that any school official could see into a student’s bedroom at any given moment. There is a level of privacy that everyone should be ensured. It is ridiculous for a presumptuous school administration to assume that they had the right to peer into young adults’ lives, let alone without any warning or notification. Many high school students are not legally adults, but this does not give any adult the permission to monitor students’ every move at the click of a button.
Basic privacy is a gift that everyone takes for granted. No one goes home expecting someone to be looking through their curtains or watching from across the street with binoculars. No authority has the right to invade our privacy. With new technological advances everyday, this right is slipping away.

Placing a fake 911 Call

In HARTWOOD, Va the student newspaper at a public university in Virginia is seeking legal matters after open records for a mock "emergency" phone call made by the university's president were denied. At a campus safety walk University of Mary Washington President Judy Hample made a phone call from an emergency phone which was loctaed on campus claiming she was being mugged by an assailant with a gun.However the president was not bing mugged, she was trying to test the university police reaction time,seeing how long it would take for them to get to her location. Jessica Masulli editor-in-chief of the university's school paper said,"It put people in danger because the police did not know it was a test and took it very seriously." ther president was never charged for placing the fake 911 call.

Ok for one i think that was a poor choice on Hample part, you don't just make a fake 911 call to test their reacation time. That could of cost someone their life or got someone hurt really bad. The police had no idea it was a fake, what if they were trying to get there as fast as possible and hit someone? Or what if they saw someone that looked like they had a gun? There are two many things that could go wrong and thats why you simple just dont do that.

When Masulli requested the audio recording, the university denied their request in a letter saying "evidence related to a criminal investigation are exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act." "The recording was part of, and in fact the reason for a criminal investigation; albeit an investigation that took place in the past," wrote George Farrar, the associate vice president of university relations, in a letter to Masulli.

I think they have a good reason for not giveing them the audio but i think they should of this one time because she was'nt charged with anything and this happened at their school they have the right to let people know whats going on. They have a right to know to. I think if it would of been a kid at the school who made that fake 911 call they would of charged them, becasue they are kid. They should of charged her,all she had to do was let the police know and they could of came like any normal call.
-Lindsay McKnight

A Point of Contention

INDIANA-Michael Majchrowicz, editor-in-chief of Lake Central High School’s newspaper, The Scout, addressed the school board in regards to issues that have recently been forcibly removed from newsstands.
Majchrowicz requested that the papers be returned by Tuesday February 16, that date has since passed and the issues remain in control of the administration.
The article raising controversy is an editorial by Majchrowicz encouraging the football coach, Bill Melby’s resignation. Majchrowicz expressed his agreement with the administration’s desire for change after three consecutive losing seasons.
Lake Central’s The Scout is subject to prior review by the high school’s principal, Sandie Platt.
When the issue came back “the editorial was literally unmarked,” Majchrowicz said.
Assistant Principal Doug McCallister removed the papers after receiving several complaints from students.
The Scout is under prior review, and was approved to be made public. The ensuing controversy prompted the removal of the issue. The Lake Central administration acted very unpredictably and did not stick to their original decision.
This brings up an important issue regarding First Amendment rights and student publication rights. The issue was censored due to the controversy it created not due to its content. This poses a problem for future issues of The Scout. Censorship could become an issue if administrators perceive controversy will occur if the issue is published. This discrimination is abstract and the paper will now be subject to administrative subjectivity. Censorship based on content is much more predictable than censorship based on future conflict. This decision regarding Lake Central High School’s student newspaper sets a precedent that future issues are at the whim of administrative control.
"I think the school paper should try to do things that unite students and bring the school together, and promote what the school purpose is," Lake Central Superintendent Larry Veracco said.
The “school’s purpose” is one, no doubt, laid down by administrators. Future articles in The Scout may be cut in the future simply because they disagree with the arbitrary mission of the school.
Where would we be without the right to dissent?
BY: MIKE MOATES

High school journalists ordered to print administration-approved newspaper Administrators at Stevenson High School require student newspaper to distri

Scott Hoover

November 25, 2009

Joanna Brenner, SPLC staff write, reported that the staff of the student newspaper at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Ill were told that their next newspaper had to be composed of administration approved content. The issue will be made-up of absent stories that were initially supposed to be in the Nov. 20 issue but where removed do to the administration.
The administration threatened the student, telling them that their grades were dependent on the issue’s distribution. The staff looks to remove their byline from the published stories as a sign of protest and to include an editors’ note explaining the circumstances under which authority the newspaper was published. However, the administration denied the students of both requests.
The administration refused the newspaper to print the Nov. 20 issue do to their objection over content. Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selman submitted the issue for prior review that included a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts, for which the reporter and editor granted sources anonymously.

Selman said that the number of student leaders who have broken the contract -- meaning they have used drugs or alcohol -- appears to have greatly increased, making it a newsworthy topic, but also a topic students would be hesitant to speak about unless they remained nameless. According to the students, the head of the Communications Arts program at Stevenson told newspaper staff members if they laid out the paper with the story, administrators would remove it during prior review and require staff members to reveal the names of the anonymous sources.

"We are dealing with a school administration that is completely out of control and is clearly willing to stoop to anything to shut down independent journalism," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.

LoMonte later stated that the administrators' actions show a willingness to jeopardize the students' chances to attend college.

The frustration factor that surrounds this subject is overwhelming and sickening. Student publications face these difficult problems everyday. Fortunately, the publication I am apart of doesn’t consider the topic about “will this upset the administration” rather we focus on content, newsworthy events and modern subjects that are relevant to our school. Prominent contemporary articles, even if controversial, is newsworthy content.
The administration, though the governing body of the school, doesn’t have complete control of its students. Lomonte said that this is nothing but a power game of administrators trying to 'show the kids whose boss. But what they are about to learn is that they don't own this school, the public does, and the public will not tolerate the government telling people what they can and can't say.
It’s a shame to realize that the administration is censoring a newsworthy event, a good paper and regulating their student’s freedom of speech. High school publications are important to the chemistry of the school. Keeping relevance to student’s daily lives, through the text of the paper, gives order to the administration.

High School Officials Misuse Laptop Technology

By Caitlin McCoy

At two high schools in a suburban Philadelphia district, there have been accusations that the school officials spied on families through laptops. Firstly, all of these laptops are issued by the school and have webcams. They can be activated from the school if they have been lost or stolen. However, the officials have been accused of not using the webcams specifically for this purpose. They are being accused for illegal electronic wire tapping.
Officials have spied on kids to make sure they are not misbehaving at home. By watching families they have given families no privacy. There is evidence that this is true from the photograph taken from the webcam in an official’s personal computer. Also, an assistant principal at one of the high schools was told by an official that her son had engaged in improper behavior at home. They have no reason or license by any means to do such a thing; it is not their responsibility to watch them. In fact, not even police can walk into a house without an invitation or warrant.
Obviously, the webcams have all been deactivated now and if they are to be reactivated, a written letter will be sent to all of the parents. However, this is in no way justifiable and I suspect the students will be much more apprehensive as to where they place their laptops. What the officials’ motives were behind this are somewhat unclear because they will not disclose the whole truth, but it does not seem to be in their favor whatsoever.

The Senate Renews Patriot Act

W.L. -


For those who don't know what the Patriot Act entails: it means that our government, the U.S. government, has the right to authorize court-approved wire taps, to obtain court-approved seizure of records, and the right to permit surveillance against a so-called "lone wolf", a non-U.S. citizen suspected of being involved in a terrorist organization.

Here's the problem: when investigating firms request permissions to do things like this, they're on the basis of speculation. The key word is speculation. That means they're not really sure if anybody broke any laws, or if anybody really did anything wrong, yet they revoke the rights of whoever they're breaching anyways.

What happened to the first amendment? It's a question of ethics, and the renewing of the Patriot Act is really pushing it. People have lives, and to impair their ability to live because of some speculation is nothing short of unethical.

To put it into perspective, think of it this way: what if they wire tapped you? You'd be shocked. You'd feel violated. You'd be angry. Think about it, out of pure speculation, the government essentially goes ahead and says: "No more privacy for you." That's not fair, is it? No, it's not. And the problem is that this stuff actually happens to people every year.

Now of course, what about the people who actually are a threat to national security? Well they still are. There's no questioning that. But the fact of the matter is that doesn't warrant the right to take away our own privacy. It appears if we're to stuck on the idea of national security and safety, that we've completely ignored the foundation of morality and ethics.

This all bogs down to the idea of basic human rights. We all have a right to our own privacy. Nobody has the right to take that away from us under any circumstances. Nobody has a greater say, period. When the government says that they have the right to breach your own privacy, they've crossed the line. Formalizing it, and putting it into the law books doesn't make the case any different.

My Right or Yours?

By Naama Levy

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment secures the Declaration of Independence’s notion that “all men are created equal”. Throughout history, this phrase held many different meanings. In the beginning “all men” indicated white male property owners. After years of struggle, “all men” became people of both genders and later of all races and national backgrounds. The most recent struggle to bring these two words to their full and pure meaning has concerned gays and lesbians, the victims of much discrimination today. One of many examples of this is a Christian student group in California refusing to admit gays and lesbians.
After being denied from several federal courts, the Christian Legal Society recently appealed to the Supreme Court, trying to force the University of California’s Hastings College of Law to provide them with funding and other benefits. The school has been reluctant to fund the group because it excludes membership to gays, lesbians, and nonbelievers.
The CLS claims that allowing membership to gays and lesbians to their group would be against their beliefs and thus violate their speech and religion freedoms. However, the federal courts have so far disagreed.
People tend to use the First Amendment as an excuse to discriminate. The attitude is “I’m entitled to express my religious opinion” meaning “I can hurt and exclude people if that’s what my religion tells me to do”. But our nation’s laws prohibit discrimination of any sort unless it’s for the interest of the government. The state didn’t forbid CLS to exclude gays and lesbians (that’s a whole other issue); they simply denied them funding because of their selectiveness in members, which is completely fair. If the group chooses not to accept specific minorities, they should be ready to bear the consequences and realize they won’t be treated like any other group.
However, the matter is controversial for a reason. One could ask why gay students would even be interested in joining a group such as the CLS, which is known for its conservatism. Considering the obviously different views involved about the definition of Christianity, wouldn’t a gay student just be asking for conflict by trying to join such a group? Couldn’t they found their own gay Christian group?
But the first amendment gives us the right to choose, the right to be treated equally. Although the law has done many good things for our country, we must sometimes separate ideals from reality and not go by the book. At the same time, we must remember to keep fighting for the minorities who still have to battle for their equality.

"Tackling" an Issue of Conflicting Rights

BY VICTORIA ISON

Without ever even mentioning the word “abortion,” the ad managed to create controversy. In the weeks prior to Super Bowl XLIV, CBS received plenty of feedback about its decision to allow a pro-life commercial to be aired during the game. The advertisement, sponsored by the conservative group Focus on the Family, featured football player Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. When pregnant with Tim, Pam was advised to abort for health reasons. She chose not to; two decades later, Tim was a football hero.

Various organizations opposed the airing of the ad, and did so vocally. At first, their case seemed strong. In 2004, CBS had refused to air a church organization’s ad, considering it controversial because it discussed gay membership. However, the network explained in January 2010 that its policies toward controversial advertisements have evolved. Now, the network professes to “consider responsibly produced ads from all groups” equally.

Obviously, CBS is a private network. It must make money and in order to do so it has the right to limit certain programming if it feels the airing of such programming might impede profits. But, by airing the incredibly well-watched Super Bowl, CBS performs a very public act. Free speech is a right guaranteed to the American people by the First Amendment, not by CBS. Or rather, it is guaranteed to CBS, which, in exercising its free speech, is capable of squashing the free speech expectations of advertising organizations.

This issue raises a number of puzzling questions. First, is it fair for CBS to deny some organizations airtime when it accepts others? How public should the network make its advertising policies? Do organizations have the right to expect their ads be accepted? Perhaps the ultimate question is this: whose first amendment rights are more valuable: CBS’ or those of the advertising organizations? When one organization maintains its free speech only by quelling the free speech of another, is this First Amendment right really being enjoyed?