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
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 19, 2010
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--
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”.
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”.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
