Takedown requests:
when the right to preserve history
conflicts with the desire to forget it QT13
Blog by Kristin Taylor
As more student newspapers move to digital platforms, editors and advisers are facing a new and insidious form of post-publication censorship: takedown requests.
The requests usually go something like this: “I was a student at [fill in name] high school [fill in number] years ago, and I was interviewed/wrote a story/was in a photo/made a comment that I regret now. I don’t want this showing up in Google searches. Please remove this story from your site.”
This hypothetical student may not know it, but her request is part of a much larger conversation about honoring individual privacy versus preserving the historical record. In 2014, Europe’s highest court ruled individuals have a “right to be forgotten” that may supersede the right to preserve and share information via search engines like Google. This court ruling is controversial and would probably not happen in the United States; the First Amendment has strong protections for free speech and press that would likely prevent this kind of revisionism, but that doesn’t stop individuals from wishing they could take back the past.
Lawyer Mike Godwin, creator of the tongue-in-cheek “Godwin’s law,” has “been thinking longer than just about anyone else about why people can sometimes behave awfully on the Internet,” according to the Washington Post. He is skeptical that we have more “right to be forgotten” online than we do in everyday life:
“There’s this fantasy that these people have that they have control over what they say or do online,” Godwin writes. “But if I say ‘I love you’ to someone, I can’t take it back. I have no control over what happens to it after that. Words have effect in the real world that you can’t take back. That’s language’s eerie power.”
[pullquote]“What you see underlying the ‘right to be forgotten’ is the idea that somehow there’s a sense of yourself out in the world that you can draw boundaries around,” Godwin continues. “That, I think, is fantasy. I sympathize with the fantasy. I think it’s a natural human impulse. But the fact is that we’re connected in ways that require us to think profoundly about how we present ourselves. And we’re never going to achieve the kind of control over that that one might want in an ideal world.”[/pullquote]
“What you see underlying the ‘right to be forgotten’ is the idea that somehow there’s a sense of yourself out in the world that you can draw boundaries around,” he continues. “That, I think, is fantasy. I sympathize with the fantasy. I think it’s a natural human impulse. But the fact is that we’re connected in ways that require us to think profoundly about how we present ourselves. And we’re never going to achieve the kind of control over that that one might want in an ideal world.”
On one level, I have sympathy for takedown requests. It’s true that we do a lot of growing in our high school years, and we do things we later regret. You only have to look at the growing number of articles and warnings about your “digital footprint” to realize this is a big issue in the Information Age. Unlike an op-ed published in a printed school paper, which is difficult to track down, an op-ed in an online paper is easily searchable. But so are a person’s social media posts and posts where others have tagged her. Our digital footprint isn’t going away, and part of being a successful 21st century citizen is learning to manage it.
I think we also need to help our students understand it’s all right to change our minds over time. Rather than insisting we have never held any other opinion or never made a mistake, we should embrace how our ideas and perspectives shift as we get older and have more experiences. Isn’t it healthier to acknowledge our past beliefs and mistakes rather than deny them? If a college admissions officer or future employer brings up an op-ed you wrote in high school, why not say, “Yes, I had a very different view back then than I do now. Let me tell you about how and why my viewpoint has changed since then.”
[pullquote]As sympathetic as I am to the impulse to “take it back,” I can’t support revisionist history. Part of the job of journalism is to provide a historical record — a true account of events and people from a point in time. Professional papers certainly won’t erase past articles, whether print or digital, and scholastic publications shouldn’t either except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances.[/pullquote]
As sympathetic as I am to the impulse to “take it back,” I can’t support revisionist history. Part of the job of journalism is to provide a historical record — a true account of events and people from a point in time. Professional papers certainly won’t erase past articles, whether print or digital, and scholastic publications shouldn’t either except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances.
So how should we deal with these requests when they arise? JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Committee outlines ethical guidelines, staff manual processes and a list of suggestions and resources, one of which is this list of three takedown models for your staff manual. Using these guidelines, I worked with my editors at The Archer School for Girls to craft a takedown policy for our manual that errs on the side of preserving the historical record unless the potential harm to the person making the request outweighs all other factors. This is one possible model staffs could use as they begin to develop their own policies.
Staff Manual Model: Takedown Requests
The Oracle is a digital news source, but it is still part of Archer’s historical record. The Oracle’s primary purpose is to publish the truth, as best we can determine it, and be an accurate record of events and issues from students’ perspectives. Writers and editors use the 11 “Put Up” steps before publication to ensure the validity, newsworthiness and ethics of each article. For these reasons, the editorial board will not take down or edit past articles except in extraordinary circumstances.
If someone requests a takedown, the board will consider the following questions and actions:
- Does the content contain libel, inaccurate information, unwarranted invasion of privacy, obscenity or copyright infringement? If so, the editor-in-chief will remove this unprotected speech and add a corrections statement at the end of the article, as per the “Regarding Errors” policy. If, after careful investigation and discussion, the editorial board determines that the article is too heavily saturated with this unprotected speech to maintain, the board may decide to take the article down entirely. The board must come to consensus to make this decision.
- Does the content harm the requester so significantly that it outweighs all other factors? The editorial board will investigate this claim and weigh it against the value of an unaltered historical record. The board must come to consensus before taking down an article for this reason.
- If the content does not meet either of these extraordinary circumstances, it will remain posted.
Regardless of the outcome, the Editor-in-Chief will respond in writing to the request explaining the board’s action(s) and rationale for the final decision.
Guideline: Journalists may be asked to remove online content for any number of reasons. Just because content is unpopular or controversial does not mean a media staff should comply with such requests. When journalists meet their goal of producing consistent, responsible journalism, they likely will choose to leave the content in question online even in the face of criticism.
All media – including student media – provide a historical record of issues, events and comments. As such, content should not be changed unless there are unusual circumstances.
Another alternative to takedown demands would be to create publishing standards we would call Put Up criteria. Train student editors and staffers in why and how something should be published so takedown requests are avoided.
Key point: Source’s remorse, writer’s second-thoughts or other rethinking of existing information accessible to employers, colleges or simply to friends sometimes causes uncomfortable questions for student staffs.
What guidelines should student media staffers adapt or create that fulfills the role of historical-record, forum and source of information?
Stance: We feel there are no quick and easy answers, but plenty of ethical room for discussion and implementation of workable guidelines (not policy) that can withstand the test of time.
Reasoning/suggestions
- In some cases, student editors may take down a story because they determine the content warrants a one-time exception (such as fabrication or to protect a source).
- Reporters may elect to do a follow-up story.
- If student editors choose to remove content, they should publish a note on the site explaining when and why the content was removed.
- Takedown criteria should be outlined and explained in the staff manual.
- Create guidelines and procedures to ensure students only post information and images they feel meet standards of responsible journalism: Put Up guidelines.
Resources: Takedown demands? A roadmap of choices Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Respond to Takedown Demands, Student Press Law Center
Setting Criteria Before the Requests Come, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
10 Steps to a Put-Up Policy, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Audio: Takedown Requests, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
5 Ways News Organizations Respond to ‘Unpublishing’ Requests, The Poynter Institute
Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package that protects journalistically responsible student expression.
Read MoreTerms connected with
student free press legislation
Terms concerning free expression legislation
- Prior review is the practice of school administrators – or anyone in a position of authority outside the editorial staff – demanding that they be allowed to read (or preview) copy prior to publication and/or distribution.
Prior review itself is a form of prior restraint. It inevitably leads the reviewer to censor and student journalists to self-censor in an effort to assure approval. An officially designated adviser, when working with students and offering suggestions for improvement as part of the coaching and learning process, who reads or views student media content before publication is not engaged in prior review. However, when an adviser requires pre-distribution changes over the objections of student editors, his/her actions then become prior restraint.
This state legislation does not prevent prior review. However, every major journalism education organization have spoken against it, saying it has no educational value and is only the first step toward censorship.
- Prior restraint occurs when school officials – often after they have read material (prior review) – do something to inhibit, ban or restrain its publication.
Prior restraint prevents a complete and often factual story or set of facts from being told.
It often prevents an accurate account of the topic or issue from being told
- Forum for student expression
A public forum is created when school officials have “by policy or by practice” opened a publication for use by students to engage in their own free expression.
In the Hazelwood decision, the Court said it believed both the policy and practice at Hazelwood East High School reflected school officials’ intent to exercise complete control over the student newspaper’s content. That finding prompted the Court to say a designated public forum did not exist.
Nevertheless, student publications at other schools with different policies and different practices relating to editorial control can be public forums. Where student editors have been given final authority over content decisions in their publications or where a school policy explicitly describes a student publication as a designated public forum, the Tinker standard will still apply.
If you’re developing a new policy or altering current policy to reflect changes in state law, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommends using language that reads something like this:
[Name of publication] is a designated public forum for student expression. Student editors make all content decisions without prior review from school officials.
- Public forums by policy: An official school policy exists that designates student editors, within clearly defined limitations (no libel, obscenity, etc.), as the ultimate authority for determining content. (A publication’s own editorial policy does not count as an official school policy unless some school official has formally endorsed it.) School administrators practice this policy by exercising a hands-off role and empowering student editors to lead. Advisers teach and offer students advice, but they neither control nor make final decisions regarding content.
- Public forums by practice: A school policy may or may not exist regarding student media, but administrators take a hands-off approach and empower students to control content decisions. For some period of time, there has been no act of censorship by administrators and there is no required prior approval of content by administrators. Advisers teach and offer students advice, but they neither control nor make final decisions regarding content. (Principals Guide)
This link describes the types and is basis for summary to be added here: http://jeasprc.org/tweet2-choosing-your-forum-status-is-like-choosing-the-best-medicine/
Read this article by Mark Goodman on forum status: http://jeasprc.org/questions-about-public-forum-status/
Administrators like to talk of responsible or accountable student media. We agree, but want to couch the terms this way: journalistic responsibility.
Journalistic responsibility includes accuracy, context, completeness and verification. Your first responsibility, as student journalists, is to present truth as best you can find it to your various communities in such a way that empowers them to make effective decisions that enhance democracy.
Such a definition precludes prior review, prior restraint and other limitations that would distort or render student reporting inaccurate or inaccurate.
- Codes of ethics
Codes of ethics are recommended journalistic guidelines. As such they propose journalistic practices akin to professional standards. But, they are not requirements. No professional journalism organization forces its members or practitioners to adhere or to follow them.
JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics establishes Best Practices for teaching and advising journalism and student media. NSPA’s Student Code of Ethics is but one model code for students. Another, used by many student media as a model is the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
JEA recommends establishing a board -level editorial policy, media mission statement, media-level policy, media codes of ethics for students with a strong staff manual on the processes students will use to practice ethical guidelines.
The policy statements should show student media as designated public forums for student expression where students make all final decisions of content without prior review. For detailed information on wording and process for these guidelines, go to the SPRC’s Foundations package.
Relevant court cases
- Tinker: The Tinker Standard (1969) protects student speech unless it is libelous, an invasion of privacy or creates a “clear and present danger” or a “material and substantial disruption” of the school.
- Hazelwood: The Hazelwood decision (1988) allowed administrators to easily justify censorship of legitimate speech in curricular settings. The following states have this protection. Click on each state to see their law.
Common legal definitions (as defined by the SPLC):
- Libel: Any published communication – words, photos, pictures, symbols – that falsely harms a person’s reputation. Libel is written; slander is spoken defamation. A five of these elements must be present for there to be libel: publication, identification, harm, falsity and fault. Provable truth is an absolute defense against libel.
- Invasion of privacy: The right to privacy is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and not all elements recognized by all states. The four types of invasion of privacy are: Public disclosure of private and embarrassing facts; Intrusion; False light and Misappropriation
- Obscene as to minors: True obscenity is not protected speech; identifying it easier said than done. Profanity and nudity are not in themselves obscene. To be determined as obscene, something must meet all three tests: material has no serious literary, political, artistic or scientific content; predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of mines and patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors and is utterly without social importance for minors
- Material and substantial disruption: The Tinker standard. Claims of material and substantial disruption must have factual support, which can include “reasonable forecast” of disruption “Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance” or a “mere desire” to avoid unpopular views does not qualify. Sometimes referred to as “clear and present danger” in legislation.
Specific legislation language (Illinois)
- School official: A school principal or his or her designee
- School sponsored media: Any material prepared, substantially written, published or broadcast by student journalists and available to others outside the classroom
- Student journalist: Any public high school journalist who gathers, compiles, writes, edits, photographs, records or prepares information for dissemination in school-sponsored media
• Student media adviser: An individual employed, appointed or designated by a school district to supervise or provide instruction relating to school-sponsored media.
Read More
Build a strong foundation by locking in
pieces of the puzzle called journalism
Part 1 of a series on fitting the pieces of the journalism puzzle:
Knowing where to start
by Candace and John Bowen
Preparing student media for a new year often begins with design- and theme-planning. For a good number this includes summer workshops for training in reporting platforms, visual reporting approaches and the latest in apps and across-platform developments.
We hope such training also includes the basics of law and ethics. Often, we fear it does not.
Because we believe a basic understanding of legal and ethical issues is key to the puzzle of a successful year of sound journalistic media, we’d recommend the solid foundation of journalism basics to support the 2015-16 year and beyond.
Ensure students understand their legal rights and responsibilities before publication and provide them with activities and resources to prepare them for the rigors of publishing and decision-making.
Our training list to start the year and continue through it would be organized something like this:
• Outline the goals and mission of your student media
Like a road map, a goals and mission statement frames direction for student media. A mission statement presents the underlying principles student media adhere to. Goals suggest specific accomplishments used in following the mission. Both establish the how and why for students and communities alike. Like a road map, students may choose different paths from year to year but the outcome stays fixed: thorough, accurate and credible journalism.
Resources:
– New values (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
– April Fool’s Editions, “Don’t be a fool” (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
– Balance and objectivity (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
– The role of student media (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– The role of the adviser (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Mission statement development (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– JEA Model Mission statement (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
• Train staff and editors in legal principles across platforms
Even though students might embrace online media, legal and ethical basics provide a framework for digital media now and what is yet to come. While there might be some changes, the basics of unprotected speech and the importance of knowing legal background won’t change in the foreseeable future.
Resources:
– Law of Student Press, book from the Student Press Law Center, also available on Kindle
– Student Press Law Center
– JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
– Public forum overview (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Principal’s Guide to Scholastic Journalism (Quill & Scroll and JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Legal Guides (Student Press Law Center)
• Ensure board- and/or publication-level policies are in place
Strong board of education level and publication editorial policies reinforce principles student media use to reach their mission. Strong and effective editorial policies, carefully worded, protect not only student media but also school systems if legal issues arise. Lack of careful wording is worse than no policy at all. Policies reflect the publication’s values and commitments. Ideally, the most effective policies establish student media as designated public forums, without prior review and where students make all content decisions.
Resources
– The Foundations of Journalism: policies, ethics and staff manuals (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Board of education- and publication level- models (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Board media policies (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
– Why avoiding prior review is educationally sound (Quill & Scroll Principal’s Guide)
– Eliminating prior review (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
• Train staff and editors in ethical principles across platforms
Even though students might embrace online media, ethical basics provide a compass for print and digital media now and for what is yet to come. Practice in and knowledge of ethical critical thinking provides principles for journalistically responsible reporting. Reinforcement of ethical practices builds student publications steeped in ethical fitness.
Resources:
– JEA Adviser Code of Ethics (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Online ethics guidelines for student media (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Questions student staffs should discuss before entering the social media environment (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– SPJ Code of ethics (Society of Professional Journalists)
– Critical thinking, ethics and knowledge-based practice in visual media (Journalist’s Resource)
• Establish, for online or print, a content verification process
While this might have been part of skills-oriented summer workshop training and practice, its importance goes without question. Verification, credibility, context and accuracy are the reporting cornerstones of journalism. Each is rooted in establishing a rigorous ethical process.
Resources:
– Planning and gathering information/producing content (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Getting it right (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
– Journalism as a discipline of verification (American Press Institute)
– Verification (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
• Clarify who owns content
To avoid issues if someone tries to sell your yearbook content online or you want to sell photos, determine ahead of time who owns the content of student work. It’s important to plan this ahead of incidents.
Resources:
– Who Owns Student Content? (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
– Back to School: Who Owns What? (Student Press Law Center)
– Contribution to Collective Work U.S. Copyright Office
• Develop guidelines for handing takedown demands if online
Fielding requests for takedown demands is increasingly a decision student media have to make, either from reporters after they have left school or from sources because they do not like the story. Choices are limited, and involve ethical thinking.
Resources:
–Takedown demands (JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee)
–Responding to takedown demands (Student Press Law Center)
–Takedown requests (JEA SPRC Press Rights Minute)
Without an understanding of rights and responsibilities – the “could we?” and “should we?” of producing media, staffs can have the most attractive layouts imaginable and captivating story-telling, but they could still make legal and ethical mistakes that would ruin their chance to produce anything else for their audience.
Part 1: Build a strong foundation
Part 2: Careful preparation creates strong mission statements
Part 3: Points to avoid
Part 4: Fitting the pieces into a strong Foundation
Read More
Students making content decisions – 1 Administrative review – 0
by Candace Perkins Bowen
Even media staffs that have been the well-respected voice of a large, diverse student body sometimes run into problems with administrators. And sometimes a few tweaks of the editorial policy or staff manual could get them through the rough spots and apparently back on track to publish what they know their readers need and want to know.
Virginia shooting aired live,
coverage offers timely discussions
The shooting deaths of two journalists today and the wounding of a third person in Virginia creates possible lessons for scholastic media classrooms.
- Ethics: Should other media repeat the video of the actual shooting? The shooting was broadcast live. Students could discuss the reasons for and against repeating the shooting and develop ethical guidelines for their publishing of controversial situations.
- Newsworthiness: What should the lead be? What additional information should be included in stories like this? What is the best way to update them? Once the breaking news angle has passed, how should media report additional events? How much background should be included?
- Social media: The video and related personal information went viral immediately after the shooting. How much of what hit social media should play a role in news coverage? What should journalists’ social media include? Should social media mix factual information with viewpoints?
- Storify assignment: For students just learning how to use Storify, you could create a lesson with the various approaches digital and social media used about the shooting. Discussion points could include purpose of the Storify, credibility of the sources, verification of information and ethical considerations and in making those decisions. Grading and/or discussions could work around this rubric.
Exploration of these and additional questions and examples can help scholastic journalists place their coverage in perspective and improve their coverage.
Links for use (among many):
• Deadly shooting of reporters in Virginia
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-police-shooting-live-television-news-report/
• Virginia TV murders: Reporter shot while running away; camerman’s finance watched him die
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/slain-tv-crew-both-engaged.html
• Gunman murders two Virginia reporters in attack broadcast on live TV
http://gawker.com/gunman-fires-shots-at-virginia-news-crew-during-live-re-1726593659?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
• Manhunt on for killer of two employees in SW Virginia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/08/26/tv-camera-crew-caught-in-active-shooter-situation-in-southwest-virginia/
• 2 journalists shot dead during TV broadcast in Virginia
http://mashable.com/2015/08/26/virginia-wdbj7-shooting/
• Deadly shooting during live TV news report in Va.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-police-shooting-live-television-news-report/
• Image shows the gunman
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html
• Va. shooter posted tweets, video of shooting on Twitter, manhunt underway for former disgruntled employee
http://myfox8.com/2015/08/26/va-shooter-posted-tweets-video-of-shooting-on-twitter-manhunt-underway-for-former-disgruntled-employee/
These links were all early in the day. Seek additional updates for additional information and discussion points.
Updated links from later Aug. 26:
• Should you use the video and the fax from the WDBJ shooting? That depends
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/368905/should-you-use-the-video-and-the-fax-from-the-wdbj-shooting-that-depends/
• Suspect in killing of Virginia TV crew said he was ‘just waiting to go BOOM’
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-virginia-tv-station-workers-fatally-shot-on-air-20150826-story.html
• The Virginia shooting and the dark side of the social media age
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/369105/the-virginia-shooting-and-the-dark-side-of-the-social-media-age/
• How should news organizations he treating the manifesto from the WDBJ shooting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZCaPUmD1as&feature=youtu.be
For more materials on this topic, go here.
Read More