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?