Students and the First Amendment
by By T.R. Hanrahan
Inside jewplin
August 11, 2013
http://insidejoplin.com/?p=169
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=9121#post9121
Two students in the Joplin R-8 School District had the idea to do a very brave thing.
They created a blog, Joplin Schools Watch, to ask questions about how the district is being run and how decisions are made and how dollars are spent.
It was gutsy, public interest, citizen journalism in the best traditions of the profession. And high school students who care about their community and their educations produced it. And, sadly, they seem to have been taught a lesson – a wrong-headed lesson – for their trouble.
According to the students, the Joplin district suggested to their parents that pressure be applied at home. The high school newspaper adviser also approached one student about stifling the project and an implication was made that his editorial position on the school paper might be in doubt. The district responded to public records requests in typical school administration fashion by claiming the retrieval and reproduction costs are ridiculously high.
From July 23 to July 30, there had not been a post to the blog. But on July 31 a new post went up and I was assured by one of the reporters that the blog would go on. Unfortunately, it appears that it will not.
The problem we have in the United States right now is that the freedom of expression we so need and cherish doesn’t trickle down to high school reporters.
In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld students’ rights to symbolic speech in Tinker v. Des Moines and stated firmly that students did not shed their First Amendment rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” Unfortunately, later decisions not only shed students of those rights within the confines of the schoolhouse, but also stripped them from their grasp nearly everywhere.
In 1988, the SCOTUS issued its ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir and handed school administrators the right to censor student speech simply for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The Tinker standard required “material and substantial disruption,” which is a higher standard for schools to meet.
Sadly, courts have applied the looser Hazelwood standard more and more broadly. The result being that student speech off campus or online is in play for censorship if it might be read and reacted to by the school community.
Even when the tougher Tinker standard is applied to a case, courts seem inclined to side with over-sensitive administrators.
Close to home, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 ruled against two Lee’s Summit North High School students who started a blog with commentary about the school. While the blog contained racist and sexist comments, the speech would be considered protected if the students were not in high school.
The court ruled “the location from which the [students] spoke may be less important than the district court’s finding; that the posts were directed at Lee Summit North.”
Under such logic, the students running Joplin Schools Watch could be suspended or otherwise disciplined for speech that would be protected for any of us not enrolled in the district.
This week, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that students wearing bracelets inscribed with “I [heart] Boobies” were not engaging in either lewd speech and were not likely to cause a material and substantial disruption of school operations. It is sad and ridiculous when adults with advanced degrees are made so uncomfortable by students expressing critical thinking skills that they feel the need to suppress it.
In July, I spoke with the students running the Joplin Schools Watch blog. Their reporting seemed to be accurate and ethical. The questions they raised were reasonable and justified. There were no racist or sexist views expressed. They simply asked questions and made observations about the governance of their school district. That is called journalism, sure. But it is also called citizenship.
But because the reporting portrays the district and district officials in a poor light, administrators likely threatened or actually came after these gutsy students.
It is ludicrous to think that such reporting would cause a material and substantial disruption. But courts seem to be inclined to swallow that argument without much consideration and give administrators a blank check to stifle student dissent whether on campus or elsewhere.
I have seen it first-hand on college campuses and heard the horror stories from high school students. What is so threatening about a young person with an idea, contrary view, or desire to explore a controversial subject? Isn’t education about asking and exploring and not taking everything at face value?
And schools also write vague clauses into student conduct codes and policies that let the administration interpret them as they see fit. Here is one from the Missouri Southern State University Student Handbook revised in 2011:
“Conduct which adversely affects the student’s suitability as a member of the academic community.”
If the reporting is accurate and professional, the work is done off-campus and after school hours and does not use district equipment and resources, then it is immoral – if sadly, not always illegal – to take action against these reporters. But that is just what school districts seem to be doing. And it is the wrong lesson to be teaching.
T.R. Hanrahan is a freelance reporter and editor based in Kansas City. He has taught journalism at Missouri Western State University and at Missouri Southern State University and served as adviser to The Chart at MSSU. He has a master’s degree in mass communication with an emphasis in media law from Pittsburg State University.
.
.
==================
My Racism is better than your Racism
I gotta love it whenever ZOGling whigger ass-clowns, decrying censorship, act as if there ought to be limits on "free speech" and that of course that limit is racism.
So then, having carved out exemptions for free speech, they then whine that their "rights" are being violated by others.
No, let's understand something: Neither Hanrahan nor Randy Turner really believe in free speech. What they believe in is the typpycull ZOGling whigger ass-clown notions of "free speech for me and thee eating bree, but not for those racist assholes living in single-wide trailers or dumps mortgage free." They like to draw lines imprisoning others within their prejudices while they run wild of even the pretense of self-restraint..
Which is why so many of us no longer read newspapers or want to go to colleges in order to become middle-brow edjewmacated retards. Why we have our own blogs and forums and say as much racist things as we please, without asking permission from Hanrahan or Turner.
Why should I care that little whiggresses caged in the Whigger Factory being edjewmacated can't question their imposed authority any more than a Tyson's chicken can question being groomed for a lifetime job at KFC?
Most us us have really nothing to hold us together except government force. And when that wanes, then watch our culture collapse under the onslaught of barbarians both outside and mainly inside the gates.
Hail Victory!!!
Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
August 11, 2013 at 8:19 am
by By T.R. Hanrahan
Inside jewplin
August 11, 2013
http://insidejoplin.com/?p=169
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=9121#post9121
Two students in the Joplin R-8 School District had the idea to do a very brave thing.
They created a blog, Joplin Schools Watch, to ask questions about how the district is being run and how decisions are made and how dollars are spent.
It was gutsy, public interest, citizen journalism in the best traditions of the profession. And high school students who care about their community and their educations produced it. And, sadly, they seem to have been taught a lesson – a wrong-headed lesson – for their trouble.
According to the students, the Joplin district suggested to their parents that pressure be applied at home. The high school newspaper adviser also approached one student about stifling the project and an implication was made that his editorial position on the school paper might be in doubt. The district responded to public records requests in typical school administration fashion by claiming the retrieval and reproduction costs are ridiculously high.
From July 23 to July 30, there had not been a post to the blog. But on July 31 a new post went up and I was assured by one of the reporters that the blog would go on. Unfortunately, it appears that it will not.
The problem we have in the United States right now is that the freedom of expression we so need and cherish doesn’t trickle down to high school reporters.
In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld students’ rights to symbolic speech in Tinker v. Des Moines and stated firmly that students did not shed their First Amendment rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” Unfortunately, later decisions not only shed students of those rights within the confines of the schoolhouse, but also stripped them from their grasp nearly everywhere.
In 1988, the SCOTUS issued its ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir and handed school administrators the right to censor student speech simply for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The Tinker standard required “material and substantial disruption,” which is a higher standard for schools to meet.
Sadly, courts have applied the looser Hazelwood standard more and more broadly. The result being that student speech off campus or online is in play for censorship if it might be read and reacted to by the school community.
Even when the tougher Tinker standard is applied to a case, courts seem inclined to side with over-sensitive administrators.
Close to home, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 ruled against two Lee’s Summit North High School students who started a blog with commentary about the school. While the blog contained racist and sexist comments, the speech would be considered protected if the students were not in high school.
The court ruled “the location from which the [students] spoke may be less important than the district court’s finding; that the posts were directed at Lee Summit North.”
Under such logic, the students running Joplin Schools Watch could be suspended or otherwise disciplined for speech that would be protected for any of us not enrolled in the district.
This week, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that students wearing bracelets inscribed with “I [heart] Boobies” were not engaging in either lewd speech and were not likely to cause a material and substantial disruption of school operations. It is sad and ridiculous when adults with advanced degrees are made so uncomfortable by students expressing critical thinking skills that they feel the need to suppress it.
In July, I spoke with the students running the Joplin Schools Watch blog. Their reporting seemed to be accurate and ethical. The questions they raised were reasonable and justified. There were no racist or sexist views expressed. They simply asked questions and made observations about the governance of their school district. That is called journalism, sure. But it is also called citizenship.
But because the reporting portrays the district and district officials in a poor light, administrators likely threatened or actually came after these gutsy students.
It is ludicrous to think that such reporting would cause a material and substantial disruption. But courts seem to be inclined to swallow that argument without much consideration and give administrators a blank check to stifle student dissent whether on campus or elsewhere.
I have seen it first-hand on college campuses and heard the horror stories from high school students. What is so threatening about a young person with an idea, contrary view, or desire to explore a controversial subject? Isn’t education about asking and exploring and not taking everything at face value?
And schools also write vague clauses into student conduct codes and policies that let the administration interpret them as they see fit. Here is one from the Missouri Southern State University Student Handbook revised in 2011:
“Conduct which adversely affects the student’s suitability as a member of the academic community.”
If the reporting is accurate and professional, the work is done off-campus and after school hours and does not use district equipment and resources, then it is immoral – if sadly, not always illegal – to take action against these reporters. But that is just what school districts seem to be doing. And it is the wrong lesson to be teaching.
T.R. Hanrahan is a freelance reporter and editor based in Kansas City. He has taught journalism at Missouri Western State University and at Missouri Southern State University and served as adviser to The Chart at MSSU. He has a master’s degree in mass communication with an emphasis in media law from Pittsburg State University.
.
.
==================
My Racism is better than your Racism
I gotta love it whenever ZOGling whigger ass-clowns, decrying censorship, act as if there ought to be limits on "free speech" and that of course that limit is racism.
So then, having carved out exemptions for free speech, they then whine that their "rights" are being violated by others.
No, let's understand something: Neither Hanrahan nor Randy Turner really believe in free speech. What they believe in is the typpycull ZOGling whigger ass-clown notions of "free speech for me and thee eating bree, but not for those racist assholes living in single-wide trailers or dumps mortgage free." They like to draw lines imprisoning others within their prejudices while they run wild of even the pretense of self-restraint..
Which is why so many of us no longer read newspapers or want to go to colleges in order to become middle-brow edjewmacated retards. Why we have our own blogs and forums and say as much racist things as we please, without asking permission from Hanrahan or Turner.
Why should I care that little whiggresses caged in the Whigger Factory being edjewmacated can't question their imposed authority any more than a Tyson's chicken can question being groomed for a lifetime job at KFC?
Most us us have really nothing to hold us together except government force. And when that wanes, then watch our culture collapse under the onslaught of barbarians both outside and mainly inside the gates.
Hail Victory!!!
Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
August 11, 2013 at 8:19 am
Comment