Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Censorship of Student Publications, PPT.

1. Censorship of Student Publication
You can’t tell me what to write!
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. The First Amendment
The First Amendment to the united State Constitution
is part of the united State Bill of Rights that expressly
prohibits the United Sates Congress form making
laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that
prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that
infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom
of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or
limit the right to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.

3. In the First Amendment the founding
Fathers gave the free press the
protection it must have to fulfill its
essential role in our democracy. The
press was to serve the governed, not
the governors. The government’s
power to sensor the press was
abolished so that the press would
remain forever free to censure the
Government.

4. Freedom of the press in the public
schools, however, is governed by a
different set of constitutional
precedents. Regulations of the
students newspapers is subject to the
Supreme Court decision in
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier

5. Four Categories of Litigations Concerning
Publications
1. School-sponsored newspapers
2. Nonschool, or
underground, newspapers
written and distributed by
students
3. Materials distributed by
students at school but written
and published by nonstudents
4. Internet

6. School Sponsored
 Hazelwood decision permitted the school
to control or censor a school-sponsored
paper. Nonschool publications may be
regulated only by time, place, and
manner of distribution; they cannot be
regulated as to content. These
restrictions are contingent upon the
school having created a limited public
forum as opposed to a nonpublic or
closed forum.
 In Hazelwood – the court said that the
school paper (theatrical productions, and
other expression perceived to “bear the
imprimatur”) was not a public forum.

7. Underground Publication
 If a school permits non-school
materials to be distributed then a
limited public forum has been created.
When this happens the restriction has
to be content-neutral.
 Can
 Place a restriction on time, place,
and manner restrictions on access
to school grounds
 Can’t
 Control the content as is permitted
with school-sponsored publications.

8. Underground Publication Continued
 Burch v. Barker
 Student-written our-page newspaper entitled Bad
Astra. This was critical of the schools
administration and did not contain vulgarity,
obscenity, or defamatory statements.
 The school was not able to review it’s content
before distribution; it was not school related and
Hazelwood did not apply.

9. Religious Publications
 Distributing religious newsletters written by
nonstudents.
 One court said it was ok, but the other courts
decision have not been uniformed.
 Under Hazelwood
 If School Officials have open to the school to
“indiscriminate use,” then the school becomes
a public forum an a “limited public forum can
be created.” If this is the situation distributing
religious information is constitutional.
 Don’t get caught in the situation / Do not
open the school to groups.

10. School officials may exercise editorial control
over school-sponsored publications if they
have a legitimate pedagogical reason. For
nonschool publications if the school has
created a “limited public forum,” then the
school can only control the time, place, and
manner of distribution, but not the content. If
a school policy required that students submit
materials before distribution, then strong due
process procedures must be in place, or the
policy is vulnerable to prior restraint
challenge.

11. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(School Editorials)
 Spring of ’83, Journalism teacher submit page proofs
of each Spectrum issue to the Principal
 May 13 principal object to two of the articles:
 Students’ experiences with pregnancy (three
students)
 Impact of divorce on students at the school
 Principals Concerns
 Different names were used, but he felt you could
still figure out who the students were
 Articles references to birth control and sexual
activity were inappropriate for some younger
students
 Student identified by name regarding a divorce –
parents were not given the opportunity to respond
or to consent

12. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(School Editorials) Continued
 Principal concluded to publish a four
pager instead of the six eliminating the
divorce and pregnancy pages or to not
publish a paper at all. He directed the
teacher to withhold the two mentioned
publications.
 Court’s decision: Sided with the
Administrator.

13. Internet and Free Speech
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School
District
Beussink claims that the
Woodland School District
suspended hem from school for
ten days because he had posted
a homepage on the Internet
which was critical of Woodland
High School. The homepage's
criticism of the high school
included crude and vulgar

14. Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
 Court Decision:
 First Amendment right was violated. – “clean up”
homepage
 Student faced academic harm
 He failed 4 classes because of this and lack of credit will
delay his graduation at the end of the school year.
 Student’s homepage did not materially and
substantially interfere with school discipline.
 The harm to the student is greater than that to the
district if the injunction is not granted.
 District is enjoined from:
 Using the 10 day suspension in its application of its
absenteeism policy,
 Enforcing any other sanction arising from Beussink’s
homepage which is the subject of this lawsuit,
 From restricting Beussink’s use of his home computer to
repost that homepage
 The injunctive relief was GRANTED.

15. Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School
District
 Showed a friend at home and she was upset about
it
 She told a teacher the next day, but Beussink had
not given her the address; teacher pulled up his
homepage and told the administration. The
principal viewed it
 Student was disciplined because the principal was
upset that it had been view at school {he did not
know other students have viewed the page by the
end of the day as well}
 Student suspended for 5 days then a second notice
was send that he would be suspended for an
additional 5 days.
 School has absenteeism policy that drops students’
grades in each class by one letter grade for each
unexcused absence in excess of ten days. Student
had 8.5 but the additional 10 made it 18.5 days.

16. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)
Wide-Awake Productions was denied
funding for its newspaper, Wide
Awake: A Christian Perspective at
the University of Virginia, because
it “primarily promotes a particular
belief in or about a deity or an
ultimate reality”
The University unlike most used its
Student Activities Fund to pay the
printing cost not the university’s
funds.

17. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995)
(School Editorials)
Decision of the Court:
Ruled as unconstitutional student
organization funding systems in which
some student organization expression
(e.g., publications, speakers, posters) was
paid for by the university, but that by
student religious organization was not.

18. Other Cases to Note
 Widmar v. Vincet (1981)
 Lemon v. Kurtzman (1981)
 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
 Board of Education of the Westside
Community Schools v. Mergens
(1990)
 Kincaid v. Gibson (1997)
 Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches
Union Free School District (1993)