STUDENT PRESS LAW
And ethics for student journalists
1ST AMENDMENT
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.”
THE TINKER DECISION



Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent
Community School District (1969)
Issue: whether a student had the right to
wear a black armband to school in protest
against the Vietnam War.
Supreme Court declared students’ 1st
amendment rights didn’t stop at the
school gate.
TINKER CONT.



School administrators can only restrict free
expression when it “materially disrupts
class work or involves substantial disorder
or invasion of the rights of others.”
Administrators don’t have to wait for
disturbance or disruption occurs…up to
Admin to define what will be ‘disruptive.’
Question: What evidence do they use to
decide?
TINKER CONT.

Huge victory…
Although advocates of student press rights
argued giving admin right to define
‘disruptive’ was too restrictive, Tinker
guaranteed that students did have 1st
Amendment rights similar to those of
adults.
PRIOR RESTRAINT



Tinker has always been a point of controversy in
schools.
Administrators are concerned about the content
of school publications because they are criticized
by community and district if anything is
controversial or questionable.
Question: What should school administrators do?
What does Mrs. Miranda do?
PRIOR RESTRAINT CONT.



Principals and school boards sometimes
claim the right of prior review of student
publications.
Prior review gives administrators a chance
to view the copy before publication.
May ask adviser to remove anything
considered libelous, controversial, or
questionable.
PRIOR RESTRAINT CONT.


Prior restraint gives the administration
final control over the content of student
publications.
What do you think? Is this fair and/or
appropriate?
PRIOR RESTRAINT – THE
DEBATE

Those who support prior restraint argue:



It avoids controversial stories that might be
disruptive.
It’s the principal that is ultimately responsible
for the content.
Those who oppose prior restraint argue:



It denies 1st amendment rights to student
journalists.
Punishment of irresponsible journalism should
be dealt with after publication.
It encourages journalists to avoid controversy.
IT ALL CHANGES…



After Tinker, courts decided issues of prior
restraint on a case by case basis.
Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier
(1988)
Issue: Principal removed two pages from
paper before publication and students only
found out when the paper came out.
HAZELWOOD CONT.

Principal had issue with two articles:


One was about 3 unnamed girls who were
pregnant…feared they were identifiable and
discussed forms of birth control.
Second one about effects of divorce on
children…included critical comments by
identified student about father. Principal felt
father should have chance to respond or at
least consent to publication.
HAZELWOOD CONT.



Editors sued in federal court and won!
Court ruled principal violated students 1st
Amendment rights.
Students, don’t celebrate yet...school
appealed to the Supreme Court and won.
Your 1st amendment rights are not the
same as adults in other settings!
HAZELWOOD DECISION


Court stated school-sponsored publications and
theatrical events “may be described as part of
the school curriculum” over which school
administrators have the right to exercise
“editorial control.”
According to the decision, administrators
became publisher and have the right to review
materials before publication and can remove
materials they consider unsuitable.
HAZLEW…I KNOW…ENOUGH

Here’s what school admin can censor…
Material that is:
 “Ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately
researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane,
or unsuitable for immature audiences.”

Admin can also restrict topics such as..

“the particulars of teenage sexual activity… speech
that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug
and alcohol use, irresponsible sex or conduct
otherwise inconsistent with the shared values of a
civilized social order.”
FINAL THOUGHT

The Hazelwood decision doesn’t require
school Administrators to censor student
publications…it only gives them the right.
THANK YOU MRS. MIRANDA FOR TRUSTING
ME AND THE NEWSPAPER/YEARBOOK
STAFF TO BE RESPONSIBLE
JOURNALISTS!!
LIBEL
A false printed statement of fact that attacks
a person’s reputation or good name.
“…exposes any person to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, or obloquy [disgrace or infamy],
or which causes him to be shunned or
avoided, or which has a tendency to injure
him in his occupation.” – taken from California’s civil code.
PROVING LIBEL…IT ISN’T EASY!

To win a libel suit against a publication, a
plaintiff must prove:




Publication
Identification
Defamation
Actual malice or negligence
PROVING LIBEL - PUBLICATION




A statement must be published to be
considered libelous.
“Publication” takes place if a 3rd party
reads the questionable material.
If the public doesn’t read the material, it
cannot hurt the person’s reputation.
Publication also includes pictures,
cartoons, letters to the editor,
advertisements, etc…everything printed!!
PROVING LIBEL IDENTIFICATION



The libeled individual must be clearly
identifiable.
“Identification” is made if the name of a
person is used.
“Identification” is also made if descriptions
or circumstances easily lead readers to
deduce identity of person.
PROVING LIBEL - DEFAMATION




Occurs when false information ridicules or
disgraces a person so that he/she loses respect
of his associates or suffers financial loss.
Certain words like “prostitute” and “rapist” are
libelous by themselves.
Other words like “pregnant” depend on
circumstance.
Can’t imply criminal conduct or misconduct
either!!
PROVING LIBEL - NEGLIGENCE

Occurs when a reporter
Intentionally lies.
 Makes no effort to determine the truth.
 Publishes statements with reckless disregard
for whether they are true or false.
Examples: sloppy reporting, forgetting to check
facts, throwing away notes and trying to
remember what was said.

ACTUAL MALICE


Publication of defamatory material "with knowledge that
it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not."
How does this differ from simple negligence?
ACTUAL MALICE – COURT
CASES




New York Times v. Sullivan – Supreme Court
decided public official would have to prove
actual malice before collecting in a libel suit.
[those elected or appointed to public office]
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts – court extended
ruling to include “public persons”
Gertz v. Welch defines public persons as those
who have thrust themselves into the forefront of
important, controversial public issues.
Private persons only have to prove simple
negligence.
AVOIDING LIBEL CHARGES






Truth
Privilege
Fair Comment and Criticism (Opinion)
Actual Malice Test
Consent
Statute of limitations
Hmm…which of these is the best defense?