BHSN Fresh Voices

No More Political E-mails

2010-09-24T16:23:00.000-07:00

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

SL

Fight for the Right

2010-05-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

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

Hinds Community College, AKA “Vulgarity Police”

2010-05-21T11:04:00.000-07:00

By Naama Levy

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

Business First

2010-05-21T09:46:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-05-21T07:49:00.000-07:00

Scott Wylie Hoover

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

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

2010-05-21T06:07:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-05-21T05:48:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-21T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-21T05:31:00.000-07:00

by Victoria Ison

We act like being informed is enough.

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

Except we’re only acting.

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

It is not enough to pretend that advertising is enough.

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

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

We must be active advocates for the first amendment.

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

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

But sometimes we need to do more.

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

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

Woman Jailed for Wearing Vulgar T-Shirt

2010-05-11T05:08:00.000-07:00

By: William Liao
BHSN Fused

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

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

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

---- End Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's an ethical failure. Period.

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

Freedom of speech upheld at Emerald Ridge HS

2010-04-26T20:03:00.001-07:00

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

Rock the Boat

2010-04-20T18:08:00.000-07:00

by Lucy Farmer, Fused staff writer

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

Irony

2010-04-20T15:21:00.000-07:00

by Belle Kim, copy editor of Fused

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

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

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

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

Oh, the irony.

Prior Review is the First Step Toward Censorship

2010-04-19T11:02:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Amendment to the Rescue

2010-04-19T03:52:00.001-07:00

By Naama Levy

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

High school newspaper halts publication in protest of prior review

2010-04-18T17:05:00.000-07:00

by Scott Wylie Hoover

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

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

You Can’t Handle the Truth!

2010-04-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

By Nick Hobbs

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

At What Point is a School's Authority Limited?

2010-04-18T09:47:00.000-07:00

By Caitlin McCoy

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

Sunshine Week

2010-04-15T13:17:00.000-07:00

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

Va. Can Ban Alcohol Ads in College Newspapers

2010-04-15T04:10:00.000-07:00

Written by: William Liao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's about free speech, not the money

2010-03-28T21:06:00.000-07:00

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

A Question of Distaste

2010-03-20T19:23:00.000-07:00

by Victoria Ison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The threat of "libel tourism"

2010-02-28T19:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-27T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T12:25:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T06:07:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T06:05:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-25T19:13:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-25T13:47:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-24T10:12:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-15T06:23:00.000-08:00

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?

Freedom of Speech by Sami Haddad

2009-12-19T20:56:00.000-08:00

So I’m driving with my cousin Jad tonight. And well we are driving behind this woman who makes a decision. She pulls over, there is a sheriff near her, and tells the sheriff that Jad and I have been harassing her the whole car ride. That we have been honking at her. This made me stop and think.
People value this "freedom of speech" right? If we value it so much why do we constantly abuse it? The government takes away rights at certain times and well that is how it is but now that I think... they may have their reasons. People blatantly lie every day and we get upset when we believe the government doesn't take the people seriously?
As an Arab I have had the "freedom of speech" used on me many times. Day in and day out it seems that because I’m Arab I have to be plotting to blow something up. One day someone told that to me and I asked... why did you just say that? Their response. "It's freedom of speech."
This phrase echoes through the halls of the capitol building and should be reiterated through sea to shining sea. But people seem to now have forgotten what it has really meant. I have heard many people say mean things just because they are "exercising" their freedom of speech and it is just getting old.
Coming from a family that has not been raised here, the freedom of speech is never a thing we have taken for granted. But coming from many people that have always lived here? It has become a joke.
So I challenge all of you, whoever may read this blog, to stop using that phrase unless it is to express grievances against the government. The freedom was never intended to harass people, to accept the idea of lying, or to impede on the beliefs/ heritage of anyone. As a country our freedom of speech is something we must hold on, something to be proud of. Not a freedom to be abused.

Guilty for saying not guilty

2009-12-18T18:46:00.000-08:00

In December 11th news, a Pennsylvania judge cleared four former Pittsburgh-area high school students of harassment for wearing T-shirts with the words "Not Guilty" to school.
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.

Siyang Liu

Protecting Your Image, or Making It Worse?

2009-12-18T09:54:00.000-08:00

Two writers for “The Breeze” student publication were charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and non-compliance at Hillside Hall, an on-campus dormitory of James Madison University , by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The writers simply wanted to interview some students about a story that had been going around involving a “peeping Tom”. It is their right to pursue this information within legal boundaries
The two journalists simply went to the residence hall to talk to students about the “peeping Tom” incident that had occurred recently. The journalists followed the necessary guidelines so that they would be allowed into the hall and could continue their investigation within the required rules of the university residence hall manual.
One of the interviewers questioned the students outside of the hall, and then requested that they accompany her inside. Later, a resident advisor asked the reporter to leave. The interviewer then brought in her partner, and eventually a resident they were familiar with to clear up any misunderstandings, but the residence hall director still threatened to call the police.
This is a very blatant disregard for freedom of the press. The student journalists behaved within the rules and boundaries set by the Resident Advisors of the dormitory. The RAs had no right to threaten the students with a police call. The reporters were not doing anything wrong and they were following the rules of the residency hall manual.
The RA had no reason to crack down on the students for conducting interviews.
The RA was attempting to censor the journalists to prevent the dormitory from looking bad, so they sought to scare the students away with an unjustified threat of incarceration. This is a major violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of the press.

Nick Hobbs

Don't Sugar-Coat It

2009-12-17T16:28:00.000-08:00

Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer

McPherson High School’s staff at The High Life in Kansas wrote an article about two pregnant teenagers at the school. The newspaper’s advisor, Todd Brittingham, cut the story from the second issue of The High Life. He assumed that he had the right to remove articles that he felt were too controversial. The issue came out with a blank center spread that was initially meant for the story about the two girls.

Editor-in-Chief Nikki Wentling produced a statement to be published in the third issue explaining the blank spread and emphasizing the rights of student journalists.
“I respect the administration’s decision to withdraw the content of the page from the newspaper, however…a free student press is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy…we have an obligation to serve as a voice for the student body” said Wentling.

The High Life wanted to produce an article that dealt with issues regarding their student body. They gave a voice to two teenage girls who were going through something very difficult and very personal. This was not an easy thing to talk about, read about, or write about. If the press only covered sugar-coated truths, the world would be a very dark and ignorant place.

Brittingham is an example of the kind of authority figure that has the power to take control of the press without any questions being asked. High school journalists are faced with this issue everyday. Unlike independent papers, the school newspaper will always be in the shadow of the administration. It is the staff’s responsibility to not allow this to be a hindrance.

In order for a high school newspaper to be successful, the students involved need to be in control of their own rights. It is crucial that they do not lose their voice. The representation of the student body is very important and the opportunity to give a voice to any group of people should never be wasted.

Photos of Shirtless males cut from yearbook by principal's orders

2009-12-17T16:05:00.000-08:00

The principle of Chattooga High School in Summerville Georgia, had ordered four pages to be cut out of the 2009 yearbook, because there were photographs of shirtless males playing basketball that he said were inappropriate.

When I first read this I was thinking did they really pull four pages out of a yearbook because some guys didn’t have shirts on??

“She looked at (the book), saw the pictures, brought it to my attention and removed them,” Lenderman said, speaking on behalf of the adviser. “They did not represent the way we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself. If it was my son or daughter, it would not be something I would want in there. This is a course for the students.”

The photos of the men were part of a “summer activities” spread for the student life section. It was routinely hard to get the photos; they need to be taken over the summer when school is not in session. The student that took these was able to take pictures of his classmates playing basketball in a church gym. “I was with them playing basketball,” Barker said. “I had the camera with me so I just started taking pictures.”

I would have done the same thing if I was at an open gym for gymnastics and had my camera I would start taking photos to.

Barker who took the photos was upset so he decided to ask why they removed the photos. The new yearbook advisor told him that in one of the photos a male student was smiling and holding a cell phone and dollar bills, which had drug-related implications.

The page removal caused a number of complaints; the yearbook staff got a number of e-mails from angry students. It wasn’t the yearbook’s fault that the photos got pulled, so the student’s shouldn’t be upset with them.

“Everyone who’s seen them says there is nothing offensive here,” Perry said. “If you look back at all the yearbooks over the years, we’ve always had shirtless boys in them. And this year’s book also had some pictures from the chorus musical, and there were some shirtless boys in that play, and their pictures were in the yearbook.” Perry scanned all four of the missing photos of the book and posted them on his Facebook account for his students to see.

I think the whole thing was really dumb. I do not get how shirtless guys holding a cell phone and dollar bills would implicate drugs in any way. If they didn’t want shirtless males in the yearbook maybe they should have said something before hand, so they would know not to take shirtless photos. I think if they let the musical have a photo with a shirtless guy they should let some guy’s hanging out in the summer playing basketball. It would be just like if the yearbook staff took photos of the school basketball team practicing, or if they got photos of the gym class when they did a swimming lesson. I think it was a poorly made choice, especially for the photographer. He worked hard trying to get photos during the summer so that hey students at the school will have a nice yearbook. I think this is a terrible thing that happened and they should try and avoid it next time, maybe have better communication with the yearbook staff because they are the ones doing all the work.
Lindsay McKnight

Communication is Key

2009-12-17T05:49:00.000-08:00

By Naama Levy

About two months ago, a student at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, Ohio committed suicide. The student newspaper, The Stowhion was planning on printing an obituary and a photo of the student, as well as a letter sent from the student’s mother to the other students. Doesn’t sound like a very complicated situation; after all it’s a simple routine that newspapers do all the time.
However, a few days before printing, it suddenly seemed necessary to the school principal (who had been okay with this at first) that the obituary and photo be removed from the newspaper. She did not oppose to the letter from the mother, but insisted that the other elements will not be published.
The Stowhion’s advisor then contacted staff members and students to ask if they had anything else they’d like to include in the paper about the victim. Less than 30 minutes later, Schure objected to this too, sending out a letter saying, “We are not doing this”. She said, “I understand that it’s censorship and I’m OK with that.”
This made no sense to the newspaper editor-in-chief, who said that in 2005, the newspaper ran two pages on student suicides with no pressure from the administration, and that The Stowhion has been a public forum for years.
This case is one of many where journalists have been censored and silenced without justified reasons. The principal might argue otherwise, but I think she simply didn’t know what to do and decided the safe way to go would be to forbid the paper to publish the obituary, the photo, and anything other people would send.
The principal was probably afraid because suicides are a touchy subject, so she disregarded the fact that it could bee seen as disrespectful not to run the obituary and the photo. Whatever her thought process was, this is not an acceptable explanation as to why she so blatantly restricted the newspaper from activating its freedom of press.
Even if the principal had reasons to justify the censorship, she lacked the decency to communicate with the newspaper staff and explain her position. Administrators and adults in general sometimes don’t show the right respect for young journalists. A newspaper is one of the few, if not the only place in a high school where teenagers cooperate in a work environment very similar to having a real job, which requires maturity and dedication and comprises of many responsibilities. The principal at Stow-Munroe Falls failed to recognize this and treated the students as kids instead of adults, causing anger and confusion. Although the students might have disagreed with the principal, providing an explanation was the least she could do. Communication is essential in any matter concerning Freedom of Press rights and can eliminate hostility that will only create more conflicts in the future.
Often conflicts associated with freedom of the press, especially at the high school level, are the result of fear of bad reputation and miscommunication. When a sensitive subject comes up, authorities sometimes panic because they don’t know how to deal with it. The most important thing in that situation is communication.

For "Meeps" Sake

2009-12-17T05:31:00.001-08:00

By Jessi Rannochio

A news channel reported one night last week that Danvers High School parents were all called because students were using the word “meep” and the school wanted to ban the word because they believed it was used in vulgar content.

“It has nothing to do with the word,” Principal Thomas Murray said. “It has to do with the conduct of the students. We wouldn’t just ban a word just to ban a word.”

Murray didn’t continue to say what content the student were using it in but he did say that the kids weren’t using the word to harass or bully other students. He justified the reason for calling the parents as “were an attempt to stop some sort of “disruption” being planned on Facebook.” This Facebook “disruption” never actually occurred though.

The word “Meep” is a sound that Beaker uses on The Muppet Show. It’s not a bad word, its not a vulgar term, so why ban it?

This is the first question I asked myself and the only reason I can think of is that they do it because they can.

When you give someone the power of a principal or a “top dog” then sometimes they get a big head and think they can do what they want. Banning the word “Meep” takes away the student freedom of speech. They should have the right to say “Meep” when ever they want.

DHS newspaper interviews Sophomore Melanie Crane referring to what “Meep” means and she states “No one really knows.”

“Meep” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “the most versatile word in the English language, or in fact any language” so why ban it?

It really frustrates me when authority takes away minors rights because at this point in our life we just have to take it and accept what they’re saying because we are minors, but I think something need to change and we should be able to always be able to fight back for ourselves. Clearly that’s not always the case.

Freedom

2009-12-17T05:17:00.000-08:00

November 25

Illinois—Students of Lincolnshire’s Stevenson High School were restricted from printing their November 20^th issue. Stevenson’s administration prevented distribution of the issue due to three articles they deemed not “fit to print.” Three articles, one on drug use, one on teen pregnancy, and one on shoplifting were forbidden from being included in the November issue of The Statesman.

“This is nothing but a power game of administrators trying to ‘show the kids whose boss’,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.

Pamela Selman, editor-in-chief of The Statesman, said that if she were to allow a prior review of the paper to the administration, they would require her name who her anonymous sources were. Selman granted anonymity to sources in the article about drug abuse to encourage students to speak up about what was going on around them.

Stevenson High School’s administration is jeopardizing student’s first amendment rights. By preventing the publication of an issue, the administration is stripping students of their right to free speech. This is clearly a breach of our nation’s most important rights.

“It’s truly sad that Stevenson High School is run by people who operate under the principle of ‘what’s the worst thing we can do to our students and get away with it under the law,’ rather than what’s best for the student’s education,” said LoMonte.

The school claims to have not denied the publication of the issue on the grounds of damaging their reputation. If not for this reason, then why would the school be so intent on cancelling the issue? It is clear that Stevenson High School’s administration was intent on barring distribution of The Statesman due to concerns over how the public would receive the articles within.

The right to free speech is always in effect. It is a right that is unconditional. It is a crime that Stevenson’s administration is attempting to thwart the rights of students to freely speak their mind.

--Michael Moates

Ten-year-old refuses to stand for pledge

2009-12-16T19:44:00.000-08:00

Written by: William Liao

Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.

With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.

As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.

So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.

I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.

Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.

The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.

First Amendment Ignored by Stevenson High School Administration

2009-12-15T22:30:00.000-08:00

by Belle Kim

In yet another blatant disregard of the First Amendment by a school administration, staff members of the Stevenson High School student newspaper Statesmen were forced to publish an issue composed of only administration-approved content.

The issue originated when Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selmon submitted for prior review a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts. Because the number of student leaders who had broken the contract of no-drugs-or-alcohol appeared to have greatly increased, the topic had been deemed newsworthy. However, it would also be a topic that students would be reluctant to speak about. Thus, the reporter and editor granted their sources anonymity.

The school administration refused to allow the publication of the story, unless the sources were named. When the staff members chose to remove the article and distribute the issue with a blank front page, the administrative review board refused to allow the issue to print with the blank space, and also censored two other stories in the newspaper covering teen pregnancy and shoplifting. In protest, the staff requested to remove their bylines from the published stories and to include an editor's note explaining the circumstances under which the article was published. Both requests were denied. These students are now being represented by Chicago attorney Gabriel Fuentes through the SPLC's volunteer attorney referral network.

It seems ridiculous that the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is only applicable in the real word and not in schools. The experiences that we have in high school supposed to prepare us for the real world. And in the real world, in the United States, a journalist has a right to cover newsworthy stories without fear of censorship or persecution from the government.

Shouldn't this right apply to the journalists of Stevenson High School, as well?

The school administration failed to do its job: to promote education and to act for the general welfare of the students. The staff of the newspaper had every right to publish the article, and the student body had every right to know the information that went into the paper.

Instead, the administration overlooked its students' rights, deeming that a higher priority would be to protect the school reputation by pulling the issue. But by choosing to do so, the administration only managed to bring more negative attention to itself and to Stevenson High School than could ever have been placed upon them, had the issue been published.

What, really, is the point of censorship? What does it accomplish? What does it show?

Only one answer can be found to these questions: that narrow-minded school administrators are willing to blatantly ignore the freedom of speech and press for its students.

Tiger Woods Can't Hide From The Truth

2009-12-11T10:57:00.000-08:00

By Caitlin McCoy

There was much suspicion regarding the incident of Tiger Woods. At 2:25 a.m. Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. What dragged out this issue for so long is the fact that Woods or his wife, Elin Woods, would not give officers any information. Another reason why this dilemma couldn’t be dropped is because he is a celebrity; one that does not have a bad record. Because of this, investigators want to find the juicy information behind this even more.
Before the definite news came out that Woods had an affair, reporters brainstormed different scenarios of what might have happened. They used the clues, such as the impact of the car to the tree and fire hydrant, to put together a possible story of what went on early that morning. One idea that was conjured up was that Woods backed up and hit a tree to try to escape from his wife who was attacking him (maybe with a golf club) because she was mad at him.
Reporters can only investigate this case to a certain extent. Because he is a celebrity, reporters tend to keep the incident on high radar, maybe higher than is needed. At the same time, Woods would not share any information at first. He has his right to say nothing to reporters. At the same time, he has to face the fact that information will get out. This is because reporters have a right to look into the disagreement Woods and his wife had.
These two forces battling each other, one to keep information from getting out, and the other, trying to get as much information as possible, bring about issues of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The reporters must keep their boundaries and Woods needs to accept that information will get out.

Assembly: the First Amendment's Forgotten Right

2009-12-09T06:01:00.000-08:00

by Victoria Ison

“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government…”

– First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

All the other rights listed in this famous clause are separated by semicolons, or at least by the word “or,” designating them as separate entities worth protecting.

This could have contributed to the confusion in the early nineteenth century. While various branches of the government were still figuring out what the Constitution and its expanding Bill of Rights meant in practical application, the wording of the first amendment in regards to the right of assembly was questioned.

Were the rights of assembly and petition separate? Or was assembly only guaranteed if it came about in the course of petitioning? The former was ultimately decided upon by the Supreme Court and various lesser courts of the nation. Today citizens of the United States understand (or they should) that they have the right to assemble as they please, so long as they do so peaceably.
It’s surprising how truly basic this right to assemble is. It goes hand in hand with religious freedom; the right to practice a belief would be futile for many if they didn’t also have the right to commune with others of the same beliefs.

More commonly, we think of the right to assemble in terms of strikes and protests. Both are essential ways of protecting other freedoms: think labor unions.

Especially in the decades before webcams and online chatting were invented, the significance of the right to assemble together can not be understated. Even today, the ability to talk face to face with another supporter of a cause can boost morale and inspire reformers in a way that technological communication can not.

The right to assemble is the right to unite in a common cause. It is an incredibly easy right to take for granted, but it is a right that can not long be forgotten.

Shirtless Guys Mean No Freedom of Press

2009-11-06T09:49:00.000-08:00

By Belle Kim, feature editor of Fused

In an article called “Photos of shirtless males cut from yearbooks on principal’s orders,” SPLC staff writer Joanna Brenner discusses an unwarranted censorship and blatant disregard of the freedom of speech and press that took place in Chatooga High school, Summerville. The new adviser of Chatooga’s yearbook brought to the attention of the principal four pages of a yearbook complied the year before under a different adviser, which contained photographs of shirtless boys playing basketball. After discussing these photos with the first-year principal Jimmy Lenderman, she cut the pages out of each copy of the yearbook that had already been bought by staff and students.

Tyler Barker, the photographer who had taken the pictures that were cut, confronted the adviser, who told him that one of the photos had drug-related implications. The photo showed a smiling male student holding a cell phone and money. To the adviser, that apparently held drug-related implications.

The censorship of those photos led to many complaints from students, who posted their thoughts on facebook and emailed former adviser Dr. Alan Perry. Perry was scandalized that the students’ first amendment rights had been so blatantly ignored and taken away. He remarked that there hadn’t been anything offensive about the cut photos at all, and that many yearbooks from the past had pictures of shirtless boys in it; but in all of his 27 years as an adviser, he had never had censorship problems, nor submitted any page to the administration. Perry put up scanned images of the pages that were cut out on facebook so that students could access them.

Worrying that her position might be threatened, or wanting to look good to the adminstration, the new yearbook adviser actually collaborated with the principal, instead of protecting the freedom of press. She took away the first amendment rights of students at the high school. Lenderman completely supported her and in that way showed that he did not care about preserving the rights of his students. He said that the photos “did not represent the way that we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself,” and thus felt completely justified in cutting out those pages that students had labored over.

There are definitely many things that can pose a threat to the good standing of a school.

A few pictures of shirtless high school guys aren't one of them.

Teenagers will be teenagers. Having a few pictures of high school students shirtless wouldn't send across a general message that the school encourages nudity. It wasn't as if the students were being shirtless to be obscene; they were playing basketball and were trying to cool off.

If the school administration were given the power to suppress anything that they thought could potentially jeopardize their school, there would be nothing in their yearbooks.

Nothing.

What did repressing the photos accomplish?

Nothing.

By censoring those pictures, the principal managed to do the very thing that he had been trying to prevent. His actions brought upon more attention to the pictures than could ever have been placed upon them, had they been published uncensored.

So Much For Freedom of Press

2009-11-06T06:01:00.000-08:00

In Summerville, Georgia, students' rights are being threatened. Recently Chatooga High School principal Jim Lenderman decided to cut four pages of the 2009 yearbook because of photos of some boys playing basketball shirtless. Lenderman deemed these photos inappropriate and now the pages containing said photos are being cut from production, outraging students.
While the new adviser was checking the yearbook produced under another adviser, she decided she did not want the pictures in the yearbook, so she took them to the principal, who ordered their removal before yearbook distribution.
These photos were part of a summer spread in the student life section. The student that took the photos, Tyler Barker, was upset with the decision, so he confronted their new adviser. The new adviser retorted with the fact that there were “drug dealing” implications found in a young man holding up his phone and money.
Dr. Alan Perry, Chatooga's former adviser commented, “I’m very disappointed with the decision to mutilate a wonderful yearbook — a decision that was completely unnecessary. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book.”
MCCSC's Publications' Policy states, “Should the advisor feel that a story or picture violates the provisions of Section I or Section II, paragraph 2 of this regulation, the advisor will make the decision not to publish the material in question. The student reporter or editor will have the right to appear under procedures outlined in Section IV. In circumstances where the student editor feels that an article, drawing or photograph should not be published, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the appropriate faculty advisor. Should the advisor agree with the student editor, the student reporter will have the right to appeal to the school’s Editorial Board.”
Schools that have to have to have their publications pre-approved by the administration have been faced with a threat to their first amendment right of “freedom of press” and as a student publication, that could be a very damaging thing. For Chatooga's students, it cost them pages in their yearbook, all their hard work on the spreads, which is not easy, and students memories.
This should be an reminder to student publications everywhere that don't have overbearing vision on their publications of just how how lucky they are.

By: Whitney Taylor

A New "Porn Policy" Violates Our Freedom of Speech

2009-11-05T18:51:00.000-08:00

Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer

Last March a "XXX" film titled "Pirates II; Stagnetti's Revenge" was shown on the University of Maryland campus. As soon as the University received word of the screening, Maryland state senator Andy Harris was notified. He threatened to withhold funds from the school if similar screenings continued. Harris asked the state Board of Regents to create a policy that would require any screening on campus to have an educational component.
The students had an opportunity to give their opinion on the matter on October 13, at a forum held by the Student Government Association, or SGA. The SGA president and a member of the Board of Regents listened to concerned students and answered their questions. The School's Board of Regents plans to vote on a new "porn policy" this month, restricting these kinds of un-educational films to be shown on campus.
The students are concerned by what could happen if state legislature becomes involved in what forms of speech are or are not allowed on their campus. The government is threatening to take money away from the school, attempting to restrict the viewing rights of legal adults. This could be seen as a small and seemingly insignificant action taken to protect the reputation of the university, when in reality this new policy is a violation of one our basic and inalienable rights. The subject matter of the film is ultimately irrelevant. It is legal for students 18 and older to view the film. If we allow the government to violate these rights, even infinitesimally, we are sending the message that we won't fight these kinds of decisions.
Our first amendment rights are granted without question, but what good are inviolable rights if you don't utilize them? You may spend thousands of dollars on a new weight-lifting machine, but you don't get any stronger until you pick up the weight and begin to work at it. We can't be oblivious to the rights that we are granted. We have to acknowledge these rights and exercise them or they will disappear. As soon as we succumb to this kind of government involvement, we lose our basic freedoms.

First Amendment concerns are raised regarding Senate passage of hate-crimes bill

2009-11-05T17:32:00.000-08:00

Siyang Liu

On October 22, 2009, Senate approved a hate-crimes bill that expanded possible prosecution to hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Even though the name of the bill sounds uncontroversial enough, it has been concerning to some. One noticeable argument from the opposition, namely by 60 conservative leaders in this case, was that this bill would ‘criminalize preaching the Gospel and put preachers in the crosshairs.’

The question is that does this bill really encroach on our First Amendment rights? After all, if what the conservative leaders claim in this case is true, then this bill would be hurting our freedom of religion.

The truth these, such claims by the opposition border more along fear-mongering than appealing to the state of our freedoms. Consider the content of this bill. Once it becomes law, it gives the Department of Justice broader authority to investigate and prosecute violent crimes “motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.”

The key word here is violent crimes. The First Amendment, or namely freedom of religion and speech in this case, is meant to protect all Americans’ rights to expression. Violent crimes and freedom of expression are two very different things. If these conservative leaders worried about having a basic First Amendment right violated, they shouldn’t be.

With or without this bill, our freedoms of expression and religion go on untouched. Regardless of whether opinions and practices relating to the First Amendment are “good” or “bad” in society’s eyes, the American justice system has stuck to our rights. Just as some people have taken advantage of the First Amendment to voice for social change, there have been some others who attend KKK rallies. The point is that whatever direction we choose to take in our opinion or what we believe in, we can do so without facing legal consequences.

The simple fact is, the First Amendment and this bill do not touch one another in any harmful way. If some wish to, they are still 100% empowered to express dissent based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If one’s religion requires preaching against certain sexual orientations or gender identities, so be it. No one is going to prosecute you for exercising your First Amendment rights; and this bill certainly doesn’t either.

Those who are are still opposed to this bill in light of these realities are entitled to their stances. However, they should take up their opposition to this expansion of hate-crimes prosecution as a political matter, instead of citing the First Amendment for misleading purposes.

Ohio principal censors student obituary and photograph

2009-11-05T16:34:00.000-08:00

A students free expression right in journalism can be a issue. In this case the principle of Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Ohio is censoring the student newspaper to prevent the publication of printing an obituary and photo of a recent student who was a suicide victim. They say it has been the schools policy for years to print a obituary and photo of a student of teacher who has passed away.

The editor and chief of the school newspaper said that the suicides victim's mother had wrote a letter to be printed in the newspaper, which was thanking her son's friends and telling them if they needed anything to come because the family would be there for support. Originally the principle said that it was OK and they could run the obituary and photo, however a couple days before the printed the principle insisted they pull the obituary and photo.They stilled ran the letter because the principle thought it was an effective way to show support for the students and family members. The victims mother then sent an email to the staff asking if any students want to include anything in it and 30 min later the principle said no. the principle thought if they would run the obituary and photo it could cause other students to commit suicide. The editor in chief thought it would of been the right thing to do saying they have done this for the other students that have passed away, it would be disrespectful to him if we didn't.

When i read this it blew me away, i mean that is not the right thing to do in that situation. If you right obituary's and put photos in for others that have passed away you should do the same even though he committed suicide. I mean it was the kids choice to do what he did, and if he would of died of a illness they prolly would of wrote a obituary and put in a photo. I think it would of done the students and family member better if they would of published it, that the respectful and right thing to do well actually its the humane thing to do. If i were to commit suicide i would want a obituary written about me. I wonder if a teacher were to commit suicide if they would write a obituary about them? I think the family and Friends would and should have more say in if they published an obituary, i mean they are the people they grew to love the kid and they know who he really was, and those people would put aside that he committed suicide in a time like that and remember the good memories they had when he/she was still alive. I think any high school newspaper should be allowed to publish an obituary unless the parents decide they don't want it in there because the students have the right to read about students and teachers that have passed away. however the family decision should overall come first before publishing. Free expression in journalism can be a issue and sometimes it stinks, like censoring the obituary like thy did in Ohio.

Article by: Lindsay McKnight

Free Flow Information Act

2009-11-05T10:25:00.000-08:00

Mike Moates

The Free Flow of Information Act has progressed enough to be considered before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The language in this bill changes the definition of who is a journalist. The Free Flow of Information Act states that “A person with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information…” is protected.

This is good news for students, college and high school alike. Before this bill there was a financial requirement for being defined and protected as a journalist. Because students aren’t paid for their work their rights were defined differently than journalists with major publications such as the New York Times.

Larger publications have a great deal more resources than student publications. Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center states that “the New York Times has a huge legal department, student journalists don’t have those kind of resources.”

What the Free Flow of Information Act will do is allow students and unpaid journalists a great deal more freedom in production of news stories. Once passed this bill will protect all journalists, paid or not. This is an important step in bringing student coverage into a similar playing field as the rest of the professional world of journalism.

The Free Flow of Information Act will allow journalism to become a much more inclusive environment. By removing the financial requirement to be considered a journalist more people will be encouraged to seek out information and present it to the public.

While the bill is not yet in effect it has been gaining momentum within the government, passing the House and moving onto the Senate after compromises were made between the government and news organizations. If passed, the Free Flow Information Act will allow journalists (paid or unpaid) in all areas of work more freedoms and protection.

Students punished by high school for posting sexually suggestive photos on myspace

2009-11-05T09:00:00.000-08:00

By: William Liao

At Churubusco High, a high school in Indianapolis, two girls were punished by their local school administration. As a result, the two girls complained and said that their free-speech rights were violated, as they were banned from extra curricular activities for a joke that they had previously committed, that had no relation whatsoever to their school-or any school for that matter.

So what happened exactly? Well, it was that summer before school. The girls had taken photos of them in lingerie and posted them on myspace. Now these photos weren't made open to all public, the photos were only viewable by their peers. Shortly after having posted these photos, the photos had reached a school official, and eventually their principal. As a result, when school commenced, both girls were told to attend counseling, and were banned from all extra-curricular activities.

Naturally, like any sort of case regarding the rights of a person, there are multiple perspectives. In this case we have two:

Side 1: Child advocates support the measures taken, and claim that it is important to monitor students.

Side 2: The children have a right to their own private practice, and the school does not have the right to dictate what the girls chose to do outside of the school environment.

So which side am I on? The latter. It's quite simple, and very plain: we as people, beyond any sort of written document, have rights as beings. At the most basic of levels it all comes down to a few things: we are entitled to our individuality, we are entitled to our private practice, and we are entitled to dictate precisely the way in which we commit to those two things, so long as we do not prevent any other being from doing the same thing. There is no reason we should conform and be under the thumb of another.

These girls did not harm anybody, they did not prevent anybody from exercising their very own rights: so what gives the school official the right to rob them of their own rights as beings? The truth is, the school official does not have any right to do so. The school official's job is to maintain order within a school, to insure that students can receive an education. What part of their job description requires them to monitor the actions of students outside of school-especially when it doesn't mar any part of the education process?

To sum it all up: the solution to all of this is to exercise the simple understanding of our rights as beings. The school officials need to understand what they are allowed to dictate, and why. This incident is an absolute abuse of their own power. The girls had every right to do what they did, as it was a matter of their own private practice-and so it should remain that way: private.

First Amendment

2009-11-05T05:52:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles City College (LACC) administrators are battling with the students’ school newspaper staff over a plan to include the newspaper’s budget with the student activities department. The possibility of this happening worries the newspaper staff because they believe that if this happened, it would give the administrators an opportunity to review the content o the paper before it is distributed. The staff believes that the school administrators might attempt to censor or alter the content of the paper to their own liking and approval.
The paper’s faculty advisor believes that including the paper in the activities department is an attempt by the administration to take command of the content included in the newspaper. The advisor stated that she was told by the administration that they would be looking at the content. The advisor is worried, saying that she thinks that the administrators’ power over the paper would deter students from wanting to work in the school newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is afraid that the content will be biased if the administrators included their budget with the budget of student activities. The editor-in-chief believes that the problem would be that the administrators would be editing all of their content. The paper would basically no longer be in the hands of the news staff.
This is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of the press. The newspaper staff have the right to post their own content without being censored or reviewed by the school administration. The administration has no right to regulate the content of the newspaper. The seemingly innocent plan of the administration to include the budget of the newspaper with the budget of the student activities department is simply the administration attempting to find a way to censor and edit the content of the paper without causing a lot of controversy. The newspaper staff is making the right decision by trying to prevent this from happening.

Nick Hobbs

2009-11-05T05:48:00.000-08:00

Article by Jessi Rannochio

There is a “Liberal Concern” about student’s free-expression right in journalism. This is because students who want to write about an issue that has to do with sex and sexuality have to sensor what they say, and when doing that they can’t show their real opinion.

John Butterfield of California’s Rio Americano High School recently wrote an article criticizing the school’s sexuality. Butterfield wrote about the cheer team and their provocative dance. “This is a high school rally, not the latest music video, and when the song team spends most of the routine bent over, while it may [elicit] catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate.”

The administrators decided to let this article run in the paper no matter how unflattering it may be. When doing this they hope for the team to realize they need to make a change.

Once this was printed it came to Billy O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News, attention. O’Reilly decided to air the footage of the dancers performing. In airing this footage it has caused an outcry for the team to revise their routine, so they did.

This is what uncensored journalism can do. If the administrators had thought that this article was too inappropriate to publish, then the team would have never seen how provocative their dances were. And because of this they changed their dance.

I think that uncensored journalism in high school is important because high school is the time in teenager’s lives where you really start to form your own opinions and we should be able to express them with out limits. When you put limits on people’s opinions they start to get warped and then eventually turn into more fact not opinion.

As a teenage journalist I am passionate about freedom of expression and I think that we need more of it in high school journalism.

Censoring Administrations Make A Difference in an Unexpected Way

2009-11-04T14:33:00.002-08:00

by Victoria Ison

Censor-happy administrators need to realize that when they stifle student voices the only thing they really accomplish is the satisfaction of their own paranoia.

Followers of first amendment media will have noticed the recent collection of headlines concerning censorship of tattoo-focused articles, advertisements and/or commentaries in certain high school publications.

Citing from a spectrum of supposed reasons, school administrations have felt it necessary to prevent the printing of students’ feature pieces. Some have cut already placed and purchased ads, causing a communication mayhem of back-and-forth apologies and explanations and also damaging the financial stability and reputation of school student media. Others have cut pieces at the last minute, leaving student journalist scrambling for something to fill the glaring holes.

In doing this, these administrations have created a raucous likely far more widespread and passionate than would have arisen had the material been permitted to print as planned. They have exercised and maintained their authority, certainly, but with the loss of personal respect from members of their student media, their communities, and the strangers scanning the headlines of first amendment blogs across the web.

They did all this as if their censorship could really make a difference.

The likelihood of vast numbers of high school students being encouraged to get tattoos because of an objective article in their high school newspaper (as one administrator suggested might occur if an piece he cut was permitted to print) is almost nonexistent. In all frankness, student newspaper readership numbers in many high schools are far from impressive.

Furthermore, a spectacularly miniscule percentage of student media material is actually censor-worthy. When advisors do their jobs properly, students are discouraged from pursuing any truly insensitive or “dangerous” stories, angles or ideas before the print ever hits the page.

In censoring material, administrators do not “protect” their student populations. They do not prevent them from getting tattoos, or participating in any sort of illicit behavior they had already planned. They probably do not change their readership’s lives in any way.

In fact, these administrators often accomplish exactly the opposite of their intentions. Word of squashed rights spreads fast and inane censorship incidents serve to inflame the love of other journalists for their beloved first amendment.

By censoring, administrators simply make others more determined to exercise their right to free speech. They serve as examples of “evil” administrations and make others realize the first amendment isn’t something to be taken for granted. They promote free speech awareness.

One could almost say that by censoring, administrations do the first amendment a favor.

Missouri Principal censors newspaper's articles about tattoos

2009-11-04T07:55:00.000-08:00

Scott Hoover
Fused Sports Editor

Timberland High School Principal Winston Rogers is refusing to give the editors of the student publication an explanation for why he required replacement of a story in their paper that included ads and an article about tattoos.
The original layout included a student story and editorial, the story was on the topic of health risks concerning tattoos and the editorial talked about the certain meanings of tattoos. Also on the page were two tattoo parlor ads.
The principal reviewed the paper and flared all four aspects for changes. He requested that the students add quotes that portrayed the "conservative" viewpoint of the first article. Though the students made the required changes, ultimately only the ads were permitted to print.
Censorship can be a complicated dilemma for many high school publications. Some administrators feel that it is there duty to navigate the publications ideas sheltering there students from reality and the truth. This type of censorship is just delaying the inevitable and confusing the ill-informed. High school students are at a curious and adventurous age; students need to be aware of what the concerns are that involve their school and student publications are on the front line of the student media.
It is one thing for Principal Winston Rogers to censor an article concerning something that he feels is threatening the well being of his students but that’s just it, he doesn’t give any explanation why he is pulling the article from the newspaper. The editor-in-chief said that Rodgers only asked for the publication to “trust him” on his decision and that it was being cut because of ‘the principal’s discretion’.
Censorship is and will always be an ongoing problem. However, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier over administrators’ censoring high school publications, “under the First Amendment, school officials can censor student newspapers when they can justify their decision by stating an educational purpose. Though, this decision does not allow school officials to censor articles wantonly or based on personal opinion.”
Reasoning is one of the most powerful defenses behind an argument.

Administration Outside Their Limits

2009-11-03T10:49:00.000-08:00

By Caitlin McCoy
Feature Editor

Angela Rolston, a student in a publication at Bellevue East High School interviewed the superintendent, John Deegan, about the stimulus dollars. However, while reviewing the Q&A Rolston had compiled together, Deegan completely changed his responses. He said that he did this to prevent unnecessary controversy. Deegan argued that he did not know Rolston’s intentions prior to the interview.
My opinion on this dilemma is that the Q&A should have been left as it was originally. Deegan did not have the right to change his answers regardless of if he felt his words would give people the wrong idea. Rolston should have either not given him the Q&A to look at or should have made it very clear he could not change it at all. The situation was not handled perfectly on either end but the primary dilemma was because of Deegan’s wrong action of changing his answers.
On top of this issue, Brad Stueve, the principal at Bellevue East High School, decided that an article should be removed from an issue because it was inappropriate for a high school newspaper. This article was supporting the idea that students should attend board meetings to be knowledgeable of current topics being discussed.
In this situation, Stueve had no reason to stop students from attending board meetings. There is no rule preventing students from going to the meetings and therefore Stueve can’t suddenly disallow an article supporting it. Stueve’s action only makes others believe he is hiding something or that he does not want students to benefit. Either way, Stueve did not make a good choice.
It is unfortunate that both of these dilemmas occurred at the same high school with administration. However, every facility has its conflicts. Although both Deegan and Stueve had high positions within the school, they did not have the right to prohibit articles that were absolutely acceptable just because their opinion contradicted the material.

Freedom of Belief or Disbelief

2009-11-03T06:02:00.001-08:00

By Naama Levy,
Photo and Profile Editor

Atheist ads on DART buses in Des Moines, Iowa, reading “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” inflamed a dispute. The advertisements were created by Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers. "We wanted to do it in order to let people know -- who are atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists -- that they are not alone, that there are places for them to go and meet people and to be involved," said Randy Henderson, president of the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers.
Due to phone calls of people who were offended by the ads, the ads were taken down by DART after only four days. However, DART later put the signs back up, admitting that they have run Christian advertisements in the past and promising to refund all the money for the ads.
This case is an example of people overreacting and opposing to something before even thinking about it. Had DART and the people who complained about the ads realized that it is completely legal for someone to create and hang up pro atheist ads, they might have simply let them be. This country’s foundation states that while there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone’s views, one’s freedom of expression can never be taken away.
The purpose of the first amendment was to protect the weaker communities, those whose voices would not be heard otherwise. Its purpose was and still is to prevent the larger groups from forcing their views on others and silencing oppositions. The first amendment grants us the right to believe in whatever we want or not to believe in anything, and also the freedom to express those views. Those religious people who complained about the atheist ads felt that since they are the majority, they have the power to advertise their beliefs and silence others’, which is precisely the kind of problem that necessitated the first amendment.

California principal finally gets it right

2009-10-14T17:21:00.001-07:00

By: Sami Haddad
Fused Sports Editor

During September 16, 2009 Principle Sue Vaughn, the principal of Orange County High School of the Arts, said it was mandatory that the student publication evolution had to be done through prior review. The Adviser to this publication, Konnie Krislock, refused to let her publication be viewed before it was sent to the presses. Krislock and the school’s administration then went into a two hour long meeting to discuss the problem. As it turned out, the school had no idea what California’s state education code even said about the freedom of expressions. Soon enough Vaughn retracted her statement and let the paper run without prior review.
Just thinking about this story it would make one think, how many other situations like this are happening the nation? Where schools, due to ignorance, shut down publications because they just don’t know what the law is. It is sad to see a school’s administration react in such a naïve manner to where they decide to issue prior review to the paper just because they don’t know what else to do. Krislock said herself that there was nothing in her publication that was obscene, libelous, or disruptive.
The school was very brave to fight against an oppressive system, it is this blind ignorance that leads to the censoring of many bright and skilled writers. Even if it was illegal for the school to censor the paper at all (Section 48907 in the code for California’s education code) they were willing to do that to end a publication.
If anything could have come out of this, Krislock would have had the right to sue the school itself for trying to rob her students their own right to express themselves. As a writer I hope that when this issue comes up again in any other school across the U.S.A. we will have the resources and the will power to end any thoughts of censorship among the student publication community.

Greek Life

2009-05-19T05:16:00.000-07:00

Tamar Shachaf
About you Editor

The University of West Georgia's student newspaper "The West Georgian" respects first amendment rights. The editor-in-chief permitted to publish an article by a staffer which was a satirical view of Greek life. The Student Government Assosciation and the Student Activity Fee Budget Allocation (SAFBA), it seems, did not agree that this article was appropriate. After the release of the article, which received thousands of views and comments, the SGA introduced and passed a bill to suspend funding for the paper.
Soon after the bill was passed, the SAFBA recommended to cut $11,500 from the budget of the newspaper. Though $7000 is cut because they fund an advisor, which is not allowed, the other $4500 are a mystery. The newspaper inquired into why the money was taken, yet minutes were not taken at any of the meetings and there seemed to be no reason. The only reason the SAFBA cited is that the West Georgian did not "meet the students' needs."
As a student newspaper, the West Georgian has to publish all views. Eventhough many did not agree with the Greek article it was still a perfectly acceptable article and use of free speech. The college should recognize that and be glad their paper is not censoring themselves. In a college world that is so full of Greek life it is neccessary to be reminded that it is not for everyone. The SAFBA and SAG should support the paper when it is being criticized because it is a part of their school and one of the most important parts.

https://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1905&year=2009

Cheerleading coach fired for setting bad example for students

2009-05-14T19:20:00.000-07:00

Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused

At Casa Robles High School in Orangevale California, cheerleading coach Carlie Christine was fired after some parents and students turned in a picture of her posing nude for Playboy Magazine. The students were angry that they did not make the cheerleading squad and had their parents turn in this photo to the school principal. The school administration decided that this showed Christine was a bad role model for students, and it was inappropriate for her to continue as the cheerleading coach.

While many people may not have agreed with Christine posing in this magazine, her job definitely should not have been taken away because of this. Every person is guaranteed freedom of expression by the First Amendment, and Christine should not be excluded from this right.

Just because these students may have looked up to Christine as a coach does not mean that they would have followed in her footsteps and started posing for this magazine themselves. Parents were concerned that their children had seen these pictures, but the reality is that if they felt that Christine posing for this magazine was inappropriate then they should have talked to her about it, and not gone to the school administration. Christine did absolutely nothing wrong and it is completely inappropriate that she was fired for this. If anything, the school system should be sued for taking away her valuable rights to freedom of expression.

Policy Changes at High School in Ill.

2009-05-13T06:57:00.000-07:00

May Blog
Hannah Nixon
Announcements Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1901

At a high school in Lincolnshire, Ill. a pandemonium broke out when student advisor Barbara Thill announced her resignation at Stephenson High School following the new policy rules concerning the school paper she advises called the “Statesman.”

The school board had been considering, they say, enforcing these new rules for quite some time. These new policies include more oversight of the student newspaper by Communication Arts Director David Noskin. He will now be reviewing each issue before it goes to print. The staff members of the “Statesman” were outraged, including Managing Editor Jamie Hausman who wrote a letter to the local newspaper about the unpleasant situation.

What finally triggered the policy changes was the Jan. 30 issue of the “Statesman” which featured an in-depth piece about dating habits and especially what “hooking up” means to students today. Jim Conrey, director of public information at Stephenson High School, made it clear the January issue was not the direct cause of the policy changes.

“It’s something that has been under consideration for some time,” Conrey said.

The students on the school’s paper have every right to be maddened by the situation. Not only is their educator leaving because of these policies, they will not be told the things they can and can’t write about. This has been a freedom at North that FUSED publications students have, and it is difficult to imagine what the publication would be like if staff members were told they could not right about a topic because a school authority figure doesn’t see it as appropriate.

The January article of the “Statesman” featuring topics on “hooking up” was described on SPLC’s website as completely relevant to teenage students. This is exactly what newspapers, magazines, and publications are meant to do- to serve their audience. The students, not just the staff members of the paper but the others as well, should not be punished by being ridden of information that could potentially inform them of issues they will face in high school.

Silly woman, the truth is for men...

2009-05-12T11:32:00.000-07:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

During the Miss USA pageant that took place near the end of April, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by super blogger Perez Hilton how she felt about gay marriage. In response to the question, she gave her honest opinion that she was raised to believe and did wholly believe that marriage is a union between only a man and a woman.

Silly, silly woman. How could she be so oblivious to who she was talking to? According to Urban Dictionary, "Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira), the self-proclaimed 'Queen of all Media', is an openly gay celebrity gossip blogger." His flamboyant rants and witty remarks amuse his readers almost daily. So how could a woman of such a heavy pageant background not realize that one of her judges is one of the gayest men in America?

In reaction to her controversial opinion, the media exploded. Did she lose her chance at a crown because a horrified Hilton wanted had a grudge? Is it actually possible that a grown man is so immature that he would let a woman's personal opinion interrupt his judging abilities?

She's been in numerous pageants prior to this one and should have realized by now that some people are so one-minded they can't handle what you have to say. So next time she's asked such a controversial question, she should smile, look pretty, and tell the people what they want to hear.

Put a Muzzle on it

2009-04-30T09:15:00.000-07:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

A press release issued from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression announced on April 8 the recipients of their annual Muzzle awards.

The Muzzle awards are given to the “best Muzzlers of free speech.” They are intended to recognize specific colleges, high schools and other organizations that have essentially “muzzled” its students or patrons; in some way or another, the rights to freedom of speech or expression, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment, have been taken away from those who have been promised these rights since they were first enacted in the Bill of Rights.

According to the press release, the awards are given “to those who in the preceding year committed some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press.”

The list of those noted for oppressing the right to free expression include the administrations of the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology in Myrtle Beach, S.C. and Millard South High School in Omaha, Neb., among others.

In these instances, school officials from the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology prevented its student newspaper from distributing an issue that included a story pertaining to same-sex marriage. At Millard South High, officials suspended 23 students for “wearing T-shirts commemorating a classmate that police said was killed in a gang-related shooting.”

These Muzzle awards clearly do not celebrate something positive, they recognize something negative—the “proliferation of measures taken to prevent controversial speech,” as Robert O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center, puts it.

Banned Books limit on right, Banned Book Week founder dies

2009-04-15T05:37:00.000-07:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

On April 12, 2009, Judith King, the founder of banned books week died from stomach cancer. Since 1982, King has been a strong advocate for "Intellectual Freedom." She believed that students shouldn't be told what not to read. Another librarian, Gretchen Knief, agreed, saying, "Ideas don't die because a book is forbidden reading."

The fact that any school/organization says that a book is "banned" is completely appalling, but because they are in a position of power, they are allowed their list. People that ban books are putting a lock on information. Students need to be exposed to differing opinions for that is the only way they will be able to form their own opinions.

And while banning books is not Constitutionally wrong, it does represent the power over students' rights that schools do posses. While students have their First Amendment Rights in school, they are limited. This is further represented in the fact that students are being told what they are and are not allowed to read.

Our school, with our wonderful librarians, celebrates Banned Books Week by pulling every banned book from other schools' lists and encouraging students to not only read them, but to talk about them. This is an excellent way to encourage discussion and the flow of different opinions, something that the First Amendment encourages.

2009-04-14T04:52:00.000-07:00

Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1898
Once again, SPLC reports of another student newspaper who will now have to be reviewed by an administrator prior to its distribution. This is not the first paper to go through this, and sadly it will not be the last. This school must show a copy of the issue to the principal 48 hours before its publication and must do so because of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which declares that publications must submit themselves to public review if there is a proven reason for it.

While students still have the freedom to write whatever they like in this paper, they know that their principal will read it and may change it. It takes freedom away from the staff of the newspaper, but also from the student body. If a staff knows that their principal will read everything and pay attention to it closely then they will not feel comfortable reporting news that may not be favorable to the school. Just because something is "politically correct" does not mean that it is all the truth.

The Journalism teacher at the school, Sally Turner, comments that "You don't question an award-winning art teacher or ask to review every piece of art that leaves the classroom," and she makes a very good point. Journalism is a form of art and expression that affects people'es lives. By blocking students' ability to publish what they want, the school is blocking the students.

Freedom of Speech in Every Case

2009-04-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused

Last spring, the Ku Klux Klan was distributing hate literature in certain parts of Bloomington and threatening to come have a demonstration. This raised a big controversy and many people didn't want them to come because they didn't want the Klan to spread their message of hate in Bloomington. Those who were against the Klan coming to Bloomington felt that one of the Klan's primary purposes was to incite people to anger, and build hatred in the community. People also felt that since the Klan's message is a destructive one, they shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate.

However, there is another side to this controversy in that the first amendment guarantees everyone freedom of speech even if their ideas are unpopular. The Ku Klux Klan wanted to come to Bloomington in order to get attention and create trouble. But, by people giving the Klan so much focus and attention, it helped the Klan to fulfill their goals. While the Klan had every right to come and express their beliefs, there are effective methods to prevent them from gaining exposure.

Groups like the Klan are just seeking attention. While they have the right to demonstrate, the community should exercise good judgement and not attend their gatherings. If everyone ignores them and perhaps plans and attends alternative programming that promote diversity, the Klan would not gain the recognition that they are aiming for, and eventually quit coming. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech but every person has the responsibility to evaluate what speech they decide to listen to and how they are going to react to it.

Censorship of the body?

2009-04-09T08:56:00.000-07:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

It is a scary thing indeed when a person no longer has the right to freely express themselves on their body, something which should clearly be protected under the First Amendment’s right to free speech clause.

On April 8, information was released regarding the suspension of Anthony Joseph Brown, a high school student in Huntington, West Virginia. Brown was suspended for 10 days because he had written a controversial phrase on his hand, which read “Free A-Train.”

The phrase indicates that Brown is a supporter of Anthony “A-Train” Jennings, a former Huntington student who currently faces charges of shooting a police officer. Jennings is also the alleged leader of a gang, the Black East Thugs (BET).

Principal Greg Webb of Brown’s school justified Brown’s suspension by arguing that supporters of Jennings, who write “Free A-Train” on their hands, “caus(e) a disruption in…school and interfer(e) with the educational process.” He, as well as Judge Robert C. Chambers, who ruled on Brown’s case, also argued that Brown’s suspension was justified because it gave the school reason to be worried about gang activity and support. Webb also added that he does not believe Brown’s suspension to be an issue of censorship.

This case is a prime example of the violation of students’ rights to freedom of speech. Even if a person does not agree with or support other’s beliefs and causes, such as the support of Jennings, it does not give them validation to ban a person from writing a phrase on their hand and then suspending them from school. Disagreeing with others on controversial topics is no excuse to prohibit someone from freely expressing themselves and their beliefs.

How Far is Too Far? Freedom of Assembly

2009-04-06T05:36:00.000-07:00

Hannah Nixon
Announcements Editor
April 2009 Blog Post
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1894

The week of April 29th, half of Catholic University of America’s (CWA) student newspapers were reported stolen. Copies of the paper, called The Tower, were recovered in trash bins around the campus. The staff and News Editor Justine Garbarino are looking to make up for the lost inventory. However, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was not making the process easy.

After reporting the theft, the editors of the paper were informed by the Metropolitan Police department that the crime was, in fact, not considered to be a crime at all. The MPD’s reasoning was that because The Tower does not charge for their paper it could not be considered a criminal act.

However, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) Adam Goldstein said otherwise. “That the owner of property does not charge for it does not mean the property has no value,” Goldstein said.

So How far is too far? Did the culprits push the limit of freedom of assembly because they were concurrently corrupting the CUA’s freedom of press?

“We work very hard and we feel like we are getting pushed aside,” Garbarino said.

Although the culprits were exercising one of their rights as Americans, their actions were not ethical in any way because they were also undermining the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Colorado, California and Maryland are the only states who legally hold this type of act as criminal; however this does not change what the culprits’ actions evoked.

Freedom of Religion

2009-04-01T05:56:00.000-07:00

by Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor

When the pilgrims came to America they came to seek religious freedom. They came to America to find a place where they could practice and speak of their religion without fear. Many years have passed since the pilgrims have come to flee persecution and while religious freedom is now a constitutional right, it is still not practiced my many. Recently, a Los Angeles City College student found himself having to stand up for his religion not only in front of a class, but also in front of his professor.
Jonathan Lopez prepared a speech for a class taught by John Matteson. According to Lopez, half way through his speech about G-d and miracles he was interrupted by Matteson and ridiculed him for his beliefs. Matteson went on to write on Lopez evaluation sheet that he should ask G-d for his grade. Lopez accuses Matteson of calling him a "facist bastard" and is suing him for viewpoint discrimination.
While often the classroom is not the place for religious talks, it is also not the place for ridicule because of religion. Lopez had every right to bring up his religion and the professor should have listened even if he did not agree. Professors should respect their students, and humans should respect each other. If Matteson did say and do everything Lopez accuses him of then he is a shame to his school and to colleges in general. America is a place where everyone is guaranteed religious freedom and freedom of speech. By ridiculing Lopez, Matteson was ridiculing both of those freedoms.

http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1876

Administrators Should not Block the Truth

2009-03-31T05:23:00.000-07:00

by Zhaleh Breen
About you editor

When a brick was thrown through a window of an Illinois public high school, George Fiorini, a newspaper photographer, rushed in with his camera. He wanted to take pictures for the paper, as this was definitely a news-worthy event. When the police asked to see his camera, he assumed that they wanted to use his pictures as evidence.
Unfortunately for him, the principle also felt as if she was entitled to the pictures. She confiscated his camera, and told him that he was not allowed to run the pictures, telling him that because there were students under 18 in the picture, they would run into legal issues. Somebody should have told said principle that students' rights still hold true inside school walls.

Should sex talk be prohibited?

2009-03-24T17:46:00.000-07:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

Last fall, a student newspaper in Montana started publishing a sex column in their newspaper. The column focused on student relationships of all different kinds. After this column was published, a law professor named Kristen Juras got upset and said that the newspaper needs to have new standards for hiring processes, and that the person who wrote this column should be fired immediately.

Juras said that she was not opposed to a column being written about specific sexual topics, however she saw this specific column as inappropriate. She feels that since the newspaper is payed for by tax dollars, it needs to be written "for educational purposes only", and that the columnist needs to be an expert in the topic in order to be able to write about it.

However, Juras is completely incorrect in her opinion on this issue. As a student newspaper with freedom of speech, all students have the right to write to express their opinions about any topics that they feel are relevant. In addition to this, sexual relationships are a huge topic among students, and many students are involved in sexual relationships. If anything, this column seems extremely relevant and very important for students to discuss.

Hate speech v. free speech

2009-03-24T07:53:00.000-07:00

By Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Despite the common assumption that hate groups are obsolete because of recent civil rights advancements, such groups and their derogatory speech are still prevalent in today’s society.

Though membership in hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance (W.A.R.), Neo-Nazis, Black Separatists and Neo-Confederates used to be larger, more acceptable and “admirable,” such groups and their activities are no longer tolerable in mainstream American culture. But contrary to popular belief, these groups are still abundant and functioning throughout the nation. Although hate group membership is not as high as it once was during its peak, it has not drastically decreased.

Though hate speech supporters argue that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, it should be noted that there are times when it is not protected. Hate speech directly initiates violence when the purposefully harmful language employed turns into actions of violence; this is neither protected by the First Amendment nor should be argued to be protected by the First Amendment.

For example, in the late 1980s, Tom Metzger, the founder of W.A.R., was charged with inciting the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian immigrant residing in the United States. Even though Metzger did not directly murder Seraw, he was indirectly responsible for Seraw’s murder; the men who murdered Seraw were members of W.A.R., received W.A.R.’s literature that depicted singling out minorities and killing them, and had allegedly been verbally instructed on how to provoke minorities using hate speech so that a self-defense plea would excuse them from murder charges.

However, this speech led to actions that caused a murder, one among many. This is why Metzger and his hate group were found guilty of indirectly murdering Seraw. Examples such as this emphasize the fact that the First Amendment neither supports nor protects hate speech that causes violence.

2009 First Amendment Symposium

2009-03-09T14:18:00.000-07:00

Hannah Nixon
Blog for March 13 Issue

Held in the Indiana State House on March 3rd, 2009, the First Amendment Symposium was crowded with dedicated high school journalists from all over Indiana. Joined by Bloomington High School North Principal Jeffry Henderson, he spoke about the freedom he offers to his media department at North. Governor Daniels spoke of the vitality of keeping newspapers alive, and Marybeth Tinker, a hero in the world of journalism, spoke of her great success with Freedom of Speech. Governor Daniels said, “The one chance we’ve got, I believe is in the newspapers in this state. This is an element of democracy we must not lose.”

Apart from these figures of authority, there were several high school students who spoke on topics imperative to the First Amendment. One spoke of integrity, one of truth, one of courage, and one of freedom. As each student spoke, their belief in the First Amendment rang in their words. One student in particular rang with plain noise. She began with sharing her first encounter with speaking her mind, something involving a lion and a storybook in first grade. She ended on a more serious example, and yet throughout the entirety of her speech she neglected to refer to the actual topic she was assigned: freedom. Her purpose in the end was to emphasize the importance of respecting all peoples’ views- whether in agreement with them or not. Because of the words spoken by this student on March 3, but more so because of the First Amendment, I am able to say that I believe she delivered a disastrous speech. Between unnecessary pauses, repeated uses of the word “like,” and rolling her eyes, she delivered a speech that wasn’t associated with freedom at all but rather with respect. Despite this small depression of the ceremony, the First Amendment Symposium was an overall success. The message of belief was illustrated through several winning essays, and the character trait of leadership was demonstrated by High School Journalist of the Year Aliya Mood.

The same week of the 2009 First Amendment Symposium the Rocky Mountain Newspaper died in Colorado after 150 years. Governor Daniels addressed this and stated his opinion saying, “The danger to democracy- that is the danger in American Journalism. Newspaper has been an effect of life, still is as far as I’m concerned.” Although Newspapers throughout the United States are failing, there is no less truth and no less vitality in the First Amendment. It lives on, and it is the work of journalists all through America that are keeping the dream alive.

Mary Beth Tinker speaks, inspires at First Amendment Symposium

2009-03-09T13:23:00.000-07:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

The third annual First Amendment Symposium was held at the Indianapolis Court House on Tuesday, March 3. The symposium was started three years ago by the Indiana High School Press Association (IHSPA) as a way to bring schools together to celebrate the First Amendment.
This year's guest speaker was Mary Beth Tinker, famous for her participation in the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines . Set in Iowa, 1969, Tinker and her younger siblings wore black arm bands to school in an attempt to mourn those lost in and protest the Vietnam War. The students were suspended and, after the case was taken to the Supreme Court, were cleared due to the fact that their punishment demonstrated a heavy restriction on their First Amendment right to protest.
Forty years later, Tinker was welcomed warmly by fans and admirers at the State House. Tinker spoke on issues surrounding the First Amendment that existed in the past and are still relevant today, such as prior review and speech limitations in school. She discussed that, while unfair, some limitations cannot be lifted.
So, as they remembered the past, students celebrated the present. As Tinker spoke, shook hands and took photos, she reminded students how important it is to stand up for their rights, even when it seems the hardest.

Are First Amendment Rights the Most Important?

2009-02-20T06:25:00.000-08:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

Recently, in my World History class, we were discussing our rights as American citizens. Our teacher, Pat Walsh, asked us, "besides your First Amendment rights, what rights do you have?"

He was astounded that the room grew silent and not a single person offered up any other right. He asked us why we didn't know our rights, and said that we have other rights just as important. After we discussed our other rights such as the right to vote, the right to have to an attorney, and our rights to our property, we had a test.

The last question on the test asked us to write an essay about what we believed to be our most important right and why. And I know for sure that not everyone talked about their First Amendment rights.

However, for me, it's clear that my First Amendment rights are the most important to me. It's partially because I'm a journalist. I am completely appreciative that my principal and our school newspaper let me publish anything I feel like writing.

With my First Amendment rights I am able to practice any religion I want to, and when I'm this age I do experiment with other beliefs. I will not be prosecuted for my experimentation either, something unheard of in countries such as the ones in the Middle East.

So, although it's good to know that if I am ever arrested, I have the right to an attorney, I know that the rights I use the most are clearly laid out for me in the First Amendment.

Online Blogging Now Deemed Acceptable

2009-02-19T18:53:00.000-08:00

Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused

Last month, student Avery Doninger was expelled from school for posting harsh comments about her principal on her personal online blog. Her first amendment rights were compromised and it was deemed unacceptable for her to post these comments for all to be able to see. The case is now being rethought and a connecticut lawmaker is writing up new plans, as well as a new legislation being introduced to make sure that students cannot be punished for this in the future. It would prohibit Connecticut school authorities from punishing students for anything that they say on their own personal blogs.

It is extremely important that this case was rethought because freedom of speech is one of the most important first amendment rights, and should never be compromised. This student had the complete right to say whatever she wanted to on her own personal blog. While it may have hurt the principals feelings, there is no reason that she should not have been allowed to post it.

As said in the article, students are now keeping in touch with each other through the internet and personal blogging. This student saying something on her personal blog is the same as her stating this in a text message to a friend or on the phone. Some people feel that children under the age of 18 should not be given their first amendment rights because they are not yet old enough to be responsible for them. However, if students aren't given these rights until they are 18 and already deemed adults, then how they are supposed to learn to use them responsibly? All people no matter what age still have a fright to freedom of speech as long as those rights don't compromise someone else's. It is a very good thing that this case was rethought, and new legislation is being passed for the future.

Sexting - a growing trend

2009-02-12T07:52:00.000-08:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Recently, all across the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in what the media has dubbed “sexting.”

Sexting is when young adults, typically teenagers, send posed nude photographs of themselves and sexually suggestive texts to other people. The term is called “sexting” as a play on words of “texting” -- except instead of merely texting, these teenagers are essentially selling themselves.

The problem of sexting has been featured all across the media, including “Dr. Phil” episodes and on MSNBC. In a “Dr. Phil” episode, a 16-year-old girl was sexting with older men (mid to late twenties). She had met these men online, given them her cell phone number and texted nude photographs of herself to them. She then gave them her personal information, had them come to her house and engaged in sexual intercourse with them. The girl also adamantly defended her actions by claiming that sexting is “normal” behavior because all her friends were also doing it. This specific case is just one among many.

Although teens may think that just sending one “sext” is harmless, whether it is sent to their friends or people they’ve met online, they fail to realize the extent of exposure that they’re subjecting themselves to. Texts of nude photographs typically get forwarded from friend to friend, and sooner or later, their entire social circle has viewed their inappropriate photographs.

Psychologists say that teens who engage in this type of behavior do so because they lack self-esteem and self-confidence. They are young and impressionable, often easily convinced to engage in this self-degrading sexting.

According to “Dr. Phil,” statistics show that 50 percent of teens have sent sexually suggestive text messages at least once in their lifetime. 30 percent of teens have sent nude photographs of themselves via texts.

Though it is true that young teens are vulnerable and easily influenced by adults who “take interest in them,” the root of the problem is the adults who prey on them, like tigers who hunt antelope in the wild. Though everyone, adults and children alike, has the right to freedom of speech, this right should not be license to victimize children in inappropriate and vulgar ways.

Adults should realize the limit that their freedom of speech has, especially when exercising this “right” corrupts and exposes minors. They should have the common sense, decency and nobility to understand the social limitations of freedom of speech. In this way, there will be fewer corrupting tigers and more innocent antelope in the jungle of society.

Confederate Clothing

2009-02-09T10:33:00.000-08:00

Hannah Nixon, Announcements editor. February 9th
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1862

During their 2006-07 school year, three students were suspended from Farmington High School for displaying the Confederate flag on their clothing. Almost two weeks ago today, the administrators who called for the suspensions were ruled as justified by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As each student was suspended almost three years ago, the others supported each other through showing what they call "rebel pride" on their t-shirts, hats and belt buckles. The students refused to cover or remove their clothing, and because their apparel was considered a "substantial distraction," each was suspended.

These students appealed to a district court but were dismissed. The court ruled that because the suspension was due to a clothing distraction, was not an act of "viewpoint discrimination" by an official and did not go against the First Amendment that the school's ban on the Confederate flag was reasonable. The court cited the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District case where the Supreme Court ruled that school officials must be able to “forecast substantial disruption” before ruling out expression of viewpoints. The court also included that because race-involved events were not happening just in the school district but in the community as well, that they hold the District’s ban “constitutionally permissible.”

Similar to the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the school's racist acts weren't only in the world of education, but it the neighborhoods of the community. Other violent acts had been recorded previous to the suspensions of the Farmington High students. This includes a fight that broke out during a basketball tournament where racial language was used.

The three students did appeal to the federal appeals court after their case was first dismissed, and now plan to go to the Supreme Court.

Although these students were displaying their beliefs, just as any other student may be doing everyday, it is no doubt that their clothing was a distraction to the students and the environment of their school. It is completely unnecessary to flaunt something so greatly when, no matter what a person's personal beliefs are, may be offensive to other people. Especially because of the issue surrounding this debate, racism, there is no reason that these students should not have been suspended. Their actions were out of control and not appropriate for a learning environment.

ending terrorism without compromising rights

2009-01-26T06:26:00.000-08:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

On Tuesday January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. After Obama took the presidential oath, he spoke to the American people about how we as a nation are going to move forward and change the problems with this country.

During his speech, Obama makes sure to discuss that the task ahead to change this nation is great however that we all need to work together to make it happen. He mentions that not everything can be done by the government and that all Americans need to come together to bring about change. One of the things that he discusses is terrorism and that we will say no to terrorism together as a nation, and that the government can not keep instilling fear into people trough the patriot act to take away their first amendment freedoms.

Since September 11, 2001 former president George W. Bush has convinced Americans that through the patriot act, they can all be safe and nothing can go wrong. However, Obama understands that this is not the case and wants to change this and let the country know this. We can no longer live in fear while our rights are being compromised in front of our very eyes. Bush was able to convince Americans that if rights just keep being taken away and the government can monitor our phone calls, and our conversations, and ultimately our every move, we will no longer have any terrorism. However, eventually if this continues, Americans will lose all of their first amendment freedoms that they should automatically be guaranteed in the first amendment.

Obama wants to change the way the patriot act works, and work together with all American people to stop terrorism instead of compromising their rights that should be guaranteed. If Obama is able to do this, slowly Americans will gain back their rights that have been compromised for the last eight years under former president Bush. The sad part is that Americans haven’t even realized how many rights they have lost because of the way Bush has been able to twist people’s mindsets.

Ultimately, the question ahead remains how Obama will be able to stop terrorism and stop compromising Americans freedoms. There is a different way that terrorism can be stopped and Obama needs to find it while working alongside with the American people. Change needs to happen in the next four or eight years, and with this change Americans should start gaining the rights they’ve sacrificed for the last eight years.

Riot Photographer Charged with Misdemeanor

2009-01-26T05:13:00.000-08:00

After Penn State beat Ohio State in the October 25 football match, a large riot broke out. The Daily Collegian, the Penn State student newspaper, sent out a phtographer to capture the scene and photograph it. The photographer, Michael Felleter, is now asked to appear in court to face misdemeanor charges.
Felleter was taking photographs, and when he was asked to leave he identified himself as a member of the press and was allowed to stay. The events that followed are still being discussed, however it is sure that an additional polic officer asked him to leave. Felleter says he left at that point, yet police officers say that that he was asked again, refused and then charged with a misdemeanor. The case has yet to be completed.
The editor-in-chief of the Daily Collegian believes that the polcie officers became angry because as Felleter walked away, he kept on taking pictures. Though taking photographs after the police officers were already angry may not have been the smartest thing to do as far as Felleter's record goes, it was his right and it should not have caused him to be charged with a misdemeanor. Photographers have a righ to capture the news, and photographers are the ones that put images of events into people's minds. A picture is worth a thousand words, and Felleter was trying to capture a student riot in a few pictures. It is important to mention that the first officer let Felleter stay because he was part of the press. The fact that the law force is recognizing the improtance of the press is an important step toward a first amendment fulfillment.

Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor

Privacy in the library

2009-01-13T08:24:00.000-08:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Act 455 of 1982, commonly known as “The Library Privacy Act,” applies to establishments that receive federal funds, such as public elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. This means that North is also subject to this act.

The Library Privacy Act makes certain library records confidential and provides for the selection and use of library materials. According to the Act, “library record” means “a document, record or other method of storing information retained by a library that contains information that personally identifies a library patron, including the patron's name, address or telephone number, or that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials from a library.”

This does not include materials which don’t identify any particular library patron that may be gathered to study or evaluate the circulation of library materials.

Because of this act, release or disclosure of library record without consent, procedure or a hearing is prohibited—meaning that the Act is not subject to the freedom of information act of the Public Acts of 1976.

Though the Act may be a hassle if a teacher or student simply wants to know if another library patron has checked out specific material due to overdue fines or to find the location of the material, it can be very beneficial.

If someone were to ask an employee of a library about a particular library patron’s record, and in doing so found out information they didn’t like about that person, many problems could arise. For example, by merely judging the titles of the material disclosed, a person’s religion, political opinions or general interests could become evident. And not necessarily everyone may agree with them.

Not every school completely respects its students’ rights of privacy granted to them by the First Amendment. This is why North, as well as any other school subject to The Library Privacy Act, should be aware of and appreciate every little thing that helps protect their privacy.

Students Myspace causes Suspension

2008-12-18T05:55:00.000-08:00

The social networking site MySpace gave birth to much more than a social phenomenon; it gave birth to many court cases as well. One of the most recent cases involves a Pennsylvania student who created a MySpace profile mocking his principle. In an era of fake MySpaces and constant satirical comedies, this MySpace was taken much more seriously than it should have been.
The student's principal suspended the student, claiming that the school still has power during out of school activities. The student's MySpace was compared to a student selling drugs off-campus or egging another student's house. As Judge Theordore McKee said "Here we've got the First Amendment involved. The egg-throwing, drug-selling cases seem very far afield of what we have here." Essentially, comparing drug selling to the MySpace is like comparing apples to oranges. While the MySpace may have been hurtful, simply asking the student to remove it would have gotten the point across.

-Tamar Shachaf
about you editor

Preservation of the First Amendment

2008-12-18T05:53:00.000-08:00

Emily Baugh
Calendar Editor

On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at President Bush at a press conference.

With reason, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, was extremely embarrassed and asked all of the news networks that were at the conference to hand over their tapes of the event. Talabani didn’t want anyone to think badly of the Iraqi people.

However, the U.S. government decided that they would let their news networks keep the tapes they had. A smart move really, if the government had confiscated the tapes, it would have been a violation of the First Amendment.

If the news networks had had their tapes confiscated, hopefully people would have protested. Hopefully people would have been angry. Hopefully people would be afraid for their Constitutional rights.

But in the United States today, only a handful of people still hold their Constitutional rights near and dear to them. Many people would be only too willing to give up their rights for a little “security”.

That would give our government and our leaders too much power, making them pretty much a dictator or tyrant. Our founding fathers didn’t want that to happen, that’s why they created the Constitution and broke away from England.

So the next time you feel like your Constitutional rights are being violated, take a stand and protect your rights.

unfair suspension denies first amendment rights

2008-12-18T05:14:00.000-08:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

In November 2007, a student at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Pembroke Pines, Florida named Katherine Evans was suspended for three days for posting negative comments about her teacher on Facebook. She wrote these comments and then tried to get other students to agree with her. Not only was Evans suspended, but she was also removed from her AP classes.

The school said that Evans was suspended “on the grounds of violating Broward County school board policies against bullying / cyber bullying / harassment towards a staff member and Disruptive behavior, according to a copy of her Notice of Suspension attached to the complaint.” However it doesn’t make much sense that posting negative thoughts about a teacher can now be considered bullying or harassment. In no way do these comments physically hurt the teacher, nor intimidate the teacher who clearly has more power than the student.

This suspension is a clear violation of the rights to freedom of speech. Considering the fact that negative comments can be said about the president of the United States, it seems a little ridiculous that comments that could be found offensive to a teacher couldn’t be made in the exact same way; especially considering that this was on the student’s personal blogging site and not posted during the school day.

If students can now be suspended from school for stating their personal beliefs, then this world has clearly stopped giving people the rights that they are guaranteed by the first amendment. And what is just as bad, is the fact that a student can be removed from AP classes for stating these beliefs. Evans has every right to sue the school system, and should not be denied her crucial rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines déjà vu?

2008-12-09T06:48:00.000-08:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

The Watson Chapel School District, based in Arkansas, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking it to decide the constitutionality of punishing students for wearing protest armbands.

In September, students Chris Lowry, Colton Dougan and Michael Joseph wore black armbands in protest of the Watson Chapel School District’s dress code policy. However, their school district suspended them for doing so. The students, as well as their parents, filed a suit, saying that the school district violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of these students.

However, in the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the Watson Chapel School District claims that the 8th Circuit improperly applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District while making their decision. In the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Tinker, the Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court also said that these students were allowed to freely express themselves unless their actions caused a “material and substantial disruption” of “normal school operations or an invasion of rights of other students.”

The writ states that “the prioritization of emphasis by the school district on one activity versus another is just the type of discretionary function of local schools that courts should not interfere with. As this Court has noted, the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in the school assembly is appropriate and properly rests with the school rather than the federal courts.”

Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District is an unacceptable echo of the past. It is a shame that a landmark case, such as Tinker, is essentially being repeated nearly 40 years later. The issues of Tinker should not have to be challenged and dealt with yet again, and the students of the Watson Chapel School District should not be forced to go to the Supreme Court in order to have their rights to free speech be honored.

First Amendment does not justify hate and prejudice

2008-11-11T07:17:00.000-08:00

by Zhaleh Breen
About You Editor

A couple of months ago, two students in Neuqua Valley High School wore shirts that said "Be Happy, Not Gay," on the National Day of Silence. The principle ordered them to change their shirts, because they were hurtful and offensive. The students then sued the school, citing violations of their first amendment rights.
Using the First Amendment as an excuse to peddle hate and intolerance makes a total mockery of it. Even though these students were allowed to legally wear the shirts, they should not have because it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people.
Had these two worn shirts that said something derogatory about any other group of people, such as Latinos or Muslims, than there would be no question of not allowing them to wear the shirts. It's pretty sad and pathetic that some people seem to think its alright to discriminate against homosexuals. This case should not go in their favor. What they did violates the Tinker standard, which states that students are allowed the right to free speech in schools, so long as it does not cause a disruption. Peddling hate and prejudice is a very big disruption, and should not be allowed.

California Institutes New Law for Journalism Advisors

2008-11-11T06:08:00.000-08:00

The California legislature and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill protecting journalism teachers from angry school administrators who want to punish the teachers for things that their students said.
This is a good step for teachers in California, now they can’t be fired for not censoring their students when there is nothing to censor. The administration can no longer intimidate students by holding their advisors’ jobs over their heads.
Students now are too afraid to publish articles that aren’t so controversial because they don’t want to get in trouble or get their advisors in trouble.
Only two other states have placed this law into effect, Kansas and Colorado. Even if other states have laws protecting their advisors’, none have such extensive laws like the said three states.
The rest of the 47 states should take a clue from these three states and start applying better laws into their legislature for high school advisors and high school students as well.

Emily Baugh
Announcements Editor

Many People Oppose IDS Article on Anti-Semitism

2008-11-10T19:35:00.000-08:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

On October 27, 2008, The Indiana Daily Student printed an editorial called “Praise for Anti-Zionism” by columnist Yahya Chaudhry that was seen as anti-Semitic. The article voiced Chaudhry’s opinion that Israel is a racist country and the United States would benefit from denouncing Israel. At the end of the column, he went on to make slurs against Jewish people and Jewish politicians.

Many people thought that because the article was anti-Semitic, it should not have been published in the IDS because a student newspaper should not be spreading the ideas of racism and bigotry. Some people also thought that the faculty advisor to the students should have used this as an opportunity to teach the students how to prevent racism, and not to be spread through the newspaper.

While it is sad that someone would write such an anti-Semitic editorial, the IDS still should have published it because of the rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. No person in this country should have to forfeit his or her first amendment rights no matter what. A better response to this article would be for people to respond by disagreeing with the article and stating why it was wrong. It is also an opportunity for teachable moments about the dangers of anti-Semitism and bigotry.

The IDS responded very appropriately with an editors note stating that the point of the article was not to promote anti-Semitism but rather to spark debate among readers. While many people may not agree with this article, the IDS still has every right to publish it. No person should be denied the right to have his or her opinion published just because others do not agree with his or her view. Argument and debate what make a newspaper interesting and keep readers’ attention. No paper should be denied this right including the IDS.

Congratulations Principal Jeffrey Henderson

2008-11-05T05:21:00.000-08:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

When students were told at the Franklin College State Journalism Convention that two administrators had won Administrator of the Year, Bloomington North publication students whispered to each other wondering how to get their principal, Jeffrey Henderson, to be the winner next year.

However, the staff members were happily surprised upon returning to school to find out that Henderson did in fact win Administer of the Year.

We would like to congratulate our principal for his wonderful attitude toward our school's publications. He allows us to print what we want and allows a voice. He is a full supporter of our First Amendment Rights. He is behind our paper, our magazine and our yearbook 200%, and will never let anyone talk badly about us, or say that we did not have the right to print what we did.

We love our principal and we know that he deserves this high honor. Congratulations, Mr. Henderson!! =)

Student newspaper unjustly banned from career fair

2008-10-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Missouri Southern State University’s school newspaper, the Chart, was banned from participating in a career fair in Joplin, Missouri on Oct. 8. This occurrence directly violates the First Amendment rights of the paper’s staff and is a prime example of why those rights should be protected and fought for.

Student enrollment director Derek Skaggs initiated the ban, claiming that the paper could not participate in the fair because of a recently published story which he felt portrayed the University in a “negative light.” However, the story the Chart published was merely about declining enrollment. Skaggs asserted that the article was “inappropriate for a recruiting event,” and therefore the paper would be banned from participating in the fair.

The career fair was an annual, on-campus event which invites prospective high school students to attain information about local colleges and universities. Editor-in-Chief of the Chart, Alexandra Nicolas, said that Rhonda Clark, the student magazine adviser, “showed up carrying the newspapers” and “told (Nicolas) not to put the papers out because the content was inappropriate.” However, neither Nicolas nor the staff could seem to figure out why it was deemed inappropriate and needed to be banned. The only explanation was that the fair’s objective is to recruit students, and not “scare them away” by exposing them to a story informing them about declining enrollment.

Despite this, Nicolas said that she didn’t think MSSU was intentionally trying to censor the Chart, and instead made a mistake. Nicolas then contacted the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) and the Missouri Press Association for assistance. The story then gained media attention after the Chart published an online editorial about the situation shortly after the incident. The situation is currently under investigation, headed by Vice President of Academic Affairs, John Messick.

Although the investigation’s purpose is to determine whether the staff’s First Amendment rights were violated, it is clear that they definitely were. Adam Goldstein, SPLC's legal advocate, said, “You can't avoid liability for censorship by showing how much speech you don't censor.” Those who are able to freely publish without censorship should be grateful for their First Amendment rights and continue to fight to uphold those of others.

Social Networking profiles, should they be banned

2008-10-15T05:28:00.000-07:00

Tamar Shachaf
About you Editor, Fused

While students at Bloomington High School North have been angered by the fact that social networking sites are blocked on school computers, volleyball players at a Texas high school faced a bigger issue. At a parent orientation meeting, the volleyball coach announced to the players and their parents that the players were not allowed to have profiles on social networking sites such as myspace and facebook. Angered by the fact, parents told the media and the school immediately took action. A letter was sent to parents explaining the situation, and the policy was removed. While the reasoning for the policy made sense, the policy itself was a violation of rights.
The reasoning was that students often post pictures of themselves doing things that make me considered inappropriate. While I understand that it is important to maintain a good team image, it is also important to let students exercise their rights and freedoms. If students choose to post bad pictures and comments they do KNOW the consequences that may arise and they know the risk they are taking. Instead of banning social networking profiles, the coach should simply have a talk with the players about what is appropriate and what is not. Social networking sites are just as much a way of expression as writing or music and should not be banned or limited.

Voting Amplifies Voice

2008-10-15T05:25:00.000-07:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor, Fused

As students come of age, they are opened up to a whole new world of opportunities, including being able to vote. In a Democracy, the citizens pick the government an being able to have your own voice when it comes to the election is one of America's many given freedoms. With their vote, voters are able to participate in the civic process. However, if able people don’t register and thereby don’t vote, they’re throwing away their voices, and thus have no right to complain about anything going on within their government.

One of my dearest friends has just recently informed me that she didn’t register to vote, even though she turned 18 in June. I couldn’t help but scold her a bit. I told her that when she votes, whether the outcome of the election is what she voted for or not, she is becoming involved. With her vote, she can say that at least she tried to get the results to turn out a different way.

Jessica Alba is this year’s advocate of young adults registering and going to the polls with her different Declare Yourself videos. In a skit with Hayden Panettiere from Heroes, Alba was a shopping network hostess selling various muzzles. According to the ladies, by not voting, citizens are silencing themselves to the point where it’s almost as if they’re wearing muzzles.

Young adults need to become involved in the election process. It’s what runs a democracy. By becoming knowledged on the candidates’ stances, voters can come to their own conclusions. And if the results end up being the opposite of what they wanted, at least they can say, “Well I didn’t vote for him.”

Has Freedom of the Press gone too far?

2008-10-14T18:16:00.000-07:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

Freedom of the Press is one of the most important First Amendment rights that is guaranteed by the constitution. However, is it possible that the media has taken this right too far? Is the job of the media to create news or just to report it? While the media has a right to report the news, their job is not to shape public opinion based on their personal views.

With the creation of 24 hour news networks, media is now sharing their personal views within the mix. For example Fox News is now known as the more conservative or perhaps more republican news channel, and in watching their coverage of news, this bias is obvious. On the other hand, MSNBC is widely known as one of the more liberal news networks. These are views that the public should not know about just by watching the coverage of the news.

While the press should never be censored, there is a certain inherent responsibility that comes with being a member of the media. With every right there comes responsibility, and this is certainly true in the case of the media. It is not right for the media to be convincing people to change their views based on the biases of those covering the news.

The responsibilities that go with Freedom of the Press need to be taken very seriously by all journalists. News networks need to make sure that by reporting the news they are sticking only to reporting the news and not going off on tangents about personal beliefs. If 24 hours of news is too long for networks to be able to report news without sharing biases, then news time should be shortened. Everything that’s reported in the news should be simply for the public to stay informed and that purpose only.

Censorship of anti-abortion material in public school

2008-10-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Michael, a 14-year-old student, distributed anti-abortion leaflets at his middle school on Oct. 24, 2006 in honor of the “Third Annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.” Followers of the protest also wore sweatshirts that said, “Pray to End Abortion,” as well as a piece of red duct tape over their mouths and wrists to symbolize how “they speak for unborn children.”

In an opinion released on Oct. 7, 2008, a three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that “hallways in public middle schools are not public forums, so school officials have wide discretion over regulating student speech in the hallways.” Judge John M. Rogers cited Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier as the court’s reasoning, alluding to the decision that high school administrators can censor numerous school-sponsored student publications if they can prove they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so.

During Michael’s first class, his teacher asked him to go to the office because he was “causing a disruption.” He was then sent to the guidance counselor, who made him turn his sweatshirt inside-out. According to the guidance counselor, his message was too “political,” and the school “could speak about abstinence, but not about abortion, and that the school had to remain neutral and people couldn’t take sides.”

However, later that day, Michael turned his sweatshirt right side-out again. The principal also denied Michael’s request to distribute the anti-abortion leaflets, on the premises that he did not have a chance to approve the leaflets’ content in a timely manner, as stated in the school’s policies.

Even though the U.S. district court ruled in favor of Michael, the Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling, saying that the First Amendment did not protect Michael’s rights. It argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines, “student expression is constitutionally protected unless it is unlawful (libelous, obscene, constitutes an invasion of privacy, etc.) or it seriously and physically disrupts normal school activities.” It also argued that the school was not trying to infringe upon the student’s right to freedom of speech, but to prevent hallway clutter and congestion.

Despite the school’s best interests of staying neutral on controversial matters and preventing hallway traffic, they, as well as the Sixth Circuit, went a little too far with infringing upon the student’s rights. While asking the student to remove duct tape from his mouth, as it interferes with his ability to participate in class, is understandable, asking him to remove or turn his sweatshirt inside-out is not. Since the student attended a public school and was not directly causing a disruption, his freedom of speech and expression should have been protected under the First Amendment.

Political opinions aren't exceptions to our rights

2008-09-25T12:53:00.000-07:00

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor, Fused

Every day, as the election creeps ever closer, millions of people discuss their political opinions with friends, family and sometimes even complete strangers. Some people do this to have their opinion heard, some just want those around them to know where they stand. Some, however, don’t say anything.

Those people who choose to keep quiet may be doing it because they feel like it’s no one else’s business who they’re going to vote for. My mother is like this. She says that there is an intimate conversation between her and the voting ballot, and that’s it. However, many people, including some at Bloomington North, don’t want to speak their minds, fearing they might be chastised for having the “wrong opinion.”

The First Amendment, which clearly states “freedom of speech” allows those in America to state their opinions, grievances and feelings without fear of being reprimanded. That’s why America is so unique, and that’s what makes us free. However, a person has lost their sense of freedom when they’re afraid to bring up their political views.

Discussions and debates need to be had, but just because one person’s belief is this and another’s is that doesn’t mean that one stands above all others. All people have a right to their opinion and should be able to speak it, whether those around them disagree or not.

Student punished for wearing American flag T-shirt

2008-09-25T07:17:00.000-07:00

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

On Sept. 16, 2008, a student at Dos Palos High School in California was punished for wearing a tie-dye T-shirt with an American flag on it. The shirt was worn for hippie dress-up day during the school’s homecoming week.

The school’s new vice principal saw the student and thought the shirt violated the school’s updated dress code. She then asked the student to remove his shirt and put on another one that said, “DVC: Dress Code Violator.” However, the dress code policy only states that the school district prohibits “shirts/blouses that promote specific races, cultures or ethnicities.”

The school principal then had a meeting with the vice principal, in which they reviewed the dress code. Then they had a meeting with the student and apologized for the mistake and “misinterpretation” of the dress code policy’s intent. However, the following day, students protested by wearing all red, white or blue T-shirts. The local media was also present to document the footage.

This occurrence clearly demonstrates a violation of every citizen’s First Amendment rights. Under the First Amendment, the freedoms of speech and expression are guaranteed, among others. However, the California student’s rights were violated when his school tried to censor his shirt and therefore his freedom of speech and expression.

A member of the local American Legion also said, “It is hard for me to believe that a person in power might not know the laws and freedoms afforded to all citizens.” This quote clearly demonstrates how severely harmful it can be for those in power to deprive others their rights. Any person deprived of their rights can be subject to suffer various consequences, ranging from slight to severe. It is important that citizens know their rights and stand up for them, such as the students who protested the censoring of the T-shirt did.

Homemade T-shirt causes Controversy

2008-09-25T06:27:00.000-07:00

By Emily Baugh
Announcements Editor
“Obama is a Terrorist’s Best Friend” was the slogan written across Daxx Dalton’s homemade t-shirt when he walked into his fifth grade class at Aurora Frontier K-8 School in Aurora, Colorado. Needless to say, something went down at the school; Dalton was suspended.
Dalton says he was suspended for wearing the shirt and is now promptly crying out that his First Amendment rights were violated. But should he really be yelling foul? So many people in today’s society say, do or wear something controversial and as soon as they get in trouble they say their First Amendment rights were violated.
The First Amendment shouldn’t be a way to get out of trouble or to do something that they want to do just because they know they won’t get in trouble, just like Dalton. Dalton is now pressing charges against the school.
In reality, Dalton was suspended because he was causing a disturbance. The school administrators thought that the shirt was inappropriate and gave the boy three options: change into something else, turn the shirt inside out, or be suspended. Dalton chose to be suspended. The administrators say that the boy was suspended because he was causing a disturbance and was being willfully disobedient and defiant. So really, who is in the right here, the school that was trying to do its job, or a kid who is screaming that his First Amendment rights were violated?

Patriot Act still very problematic

2008-09-24T18:57:00.000-07:00

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US constitution guarantees citizens the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Patriot Act is violating this right and still causing many problems in the U.S. today.

The Patriot Act created a new category called domestic terrorism which gave the government far reaching powers to stop domestic terrorism. Through this act, the government is allowed to detain people without giving them the right to a proper trial. If the government even claims that someone is a terrorist, they can immediately put them in jail without any proof.

After September 11, people were so terrified of terrorism that they were willing to compromise their basic liberties even if it could lead them to detention or being accused of being terrorists. Now, people even need to be careful about what they say in public because it could lead to persecution. It is ridiculous that any person should have to live in fear or feel that they need to compromise their freedom of speech. It is more important to protect our individual freedom than to randomly decide that a person might be a terrorist.

The Patriot Act is slowly taking away individual freedoms. If the government is able to capitalize on people's fears like they did with the Patriot Act, then it will only be a first step to the many freedoms that a citizen can lose in the future.

The Patriot Act has already been challenged by the ACLU and it needs to be revoked because of the flaws associated with it. More than 400 communities across the United States are trying to reform the Patriot Act. However, it needs to be done much more quickly. If the Patriot Act doesn't get changed immediately, then our liberties will be slowly chipped away, one after the next.

Students Suspended in Nebraska

2008-09-23T05:35:00.000-07:00

Last June, a high school student by the name of Julius Robinson was shot and killed. Authorities believe it was gang-related, and therefore when a group of students wore shirts to commemorate him, they were suspended.
The school called the police station to see if "RIP Julius" could be interpreted as a gang sign, and then decided to call the students into the office. I find this completely, and utterly absurd. Even if a student was a horrible criminal, he still deserves to be respected upon death. Had students worn "RIP Heath Ledger" shirts after Ledger's death, it is most likely they would have not been suspended.
The article of splc.org states that authorities were not even sure if Robinson was a gang member, however the suspicion was enough to suspend a few of his friends who had no other intention but to remember their lost friend. I find this a horrible violation of first amendment rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines it was established that students do not leave their rights outside when they enter school. The students were simply showing their view on the death of a friend, and they had the right to do so.

Free Speech MIA in Sports

2008-05-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

Most avid sports fans have at one point or another heard about a player being fined an absurd amount of money, usually for something as silly as criticizing an official. Understandably, the leagues have to keep a firm hand on the athletes to ensure their images aren't tarnished. But when do these regulations cross the line? To what extent should the leagues even be allowed to impose fines on players who have the audacity to speak their mind? Now I know they make millions and millions of dollars, and a $45,000 fine is pocket change, but this is an issue of principle.

This wouldn't be as large of an issue if the restrictions stopped with the players. Well, in the America of today, it was inevitable that the fans would get theirs sooner or later. Recently, a Papa John's in Ohio had shirts for sale that insulted LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers' superstar. They called him a "cry baby", referring to his comments after a particularly rough playoff game against the Washington Wizards. Instead of being accepted as a humorous side-effect of a heated rivalry, it was widely criticized by the media, and condemned as being petty. No punishment was handed out, but they felt the wrath of the nation and were in essence forced to make amends. They did so by giving out twenty-three cent pizzas last week to people in Ohio in honor of LeBron's number. The cost of this stunt would have to be immense, and all because one fan decided to have some fun with his freedom of speech.

There was a similar situation that we in Indiana can remember fondly. A shirt being worn by a fan at Assembly Hall during the Men's basketball season reading "Bring Back Bobby" came under fire from the university. They tried to make the man remove his shirt, and each time he complied, but later on simply put the shirt back on. But what makes IU think that it has the right to censor the shirt? What possible justification could they have for blocking this man's freedom of speech when it is so harmless and moot in the grand scheme of things? Anything that is considered controversial today is stifled whenever possible in today's world, because corporations and businesses only care about one thing: their own image to the world.

These sorts of incidents may not seem like things worthy of attention, but I think they are. We live in a time when censorship has a strangle hold on every form of media, and everything we see and hear first travels through a filter. Sure, we are allowed to express ourselves as fans, but do we truly have the liberties we think we do? Will sports teams impose so many rules that the games lose their fun and majesty? It's up to us to keep pushing the boundaries, and ensuring that the heated rivalries that make sports great for fans are kept intact. The balls in your court now.