States work toward additional student press rights

The Michigan bill brings to light the importance of the difference between prior review and prior restraint. Prior review simply means reading only. In the case of student publications, it refers to the act of school officials, or persons outside the editorial staff, that demand to preview or read a student publication before it is distributed. There is no federal or state law prohibiting the practice at the high school level, as well as there is no law requiring school officials to practice prior review. A few individual schools have sought to create their own policies condemning prior review.

Prior restraint is when an administrator has reviewed the student media (prior review) and acts on that review to inhibit its publication. The First Amendment, unlike prior review, limits prior restraint. State laws also limit the use of prior restraint (depending on each states law, similar to the Michigan and Vermont pending bills) and the legal ramifications of prior restraint vary within each state. In such states, the school official can only impede publishing if they find content that is either unlawful (libelous, obscene, whatever the state law has deemed as inappropriate for student publication) or if the material could be disruptive to the school environment. If the student media content does not fit into these criteria stated in the law, they must allow for it to be published.

As one can guess, prior review often leads to prior restraint and it’s a practice many scholastic journalists hope to dissuade school officials from practicing. In it’s book The Law of the Student Press, the Student Press Law Center writes: “There is no way a student publication can remain an independent source of news or serve as a watchdog for the school community when a school administrator is shaping its content before it goes to press.”

H.L. Hall, past president of the Journalism Education Association recently told the First Amendment Center that prior review is a “lose-lose situation for student journalists” due to the following:

1. Prior review teaches students that their ideas have no value or are dangerous.
2. It suggests students don’t need to be critical thinkers.
3. It suggests that someone else will take responsibility for whatever they do.
4. It suggests the First Amendment is not a necessary part of society.
5. It suggests journalism teachers are not needed because school administrators know best.
6. Finally, it suggests students no longer need responsibilities, morals, values, ideas, imaginations, dreams and hopes because they can expect someone else to always provide them.

THE VERMONT BILL
Similarly, Vermont’s bill would allow administrators to censor speech only if that “materially and substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school.” Entitled Freedom of Speech and Press Rights for Students, it would also stipulate that students would have freedom of speech and the press as long as the speech “is not obscene, libelous or defamatory, or constitutes a privacy violation.”

The inspiration for Anti-Hazelwood legislature in Michigan, in small part, is due to the landmark Federal Appeals Court decision made in the Dean vs. Utica Community Schools case. Katy Dean, then a student at Michigan’s Utica High School, sued the school district when her principal, Richard Machesky, did not allow for her article and an editorial from the school newspaper, The Arrow, to be published. Machesky and other school officials, namely Superintendent Joan Sergent, claimed that the story was based on unreliable sources and contained inaccuracies.

Dean and fellow student Dan Butts learned that a local resident who alleged that school bus fumes had aggravated his lung cancer and other illnesses was suing the Utica School district. Dean’s article contained information about scientific studies, as well as sources knowledge about the affects diesel exhaust can have on people’s health. The story did not include a comment from either school or community officials, who both denied her requests for interviews.

After examining evidence, Judge Arthur Tarnow ruled in favor of Dean and helped bring to light the importance of free speech in student media.

The Vermont bill was introduced on February 22, 2005 and will be heard again in March. The Michigan bill was introduced February 3, 2005 and is currently still pending decision.

Check out this Q&A with Gloria Olman, former Utica High School adviser.

Past archived features

Virtual J-day

Business Seminar

Terry Nelson

The Endangered Student Media

Sunshine Week Commentary: Singing the First Amendment Blues