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
Friday, May 21, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
