Free press–why students should
make decisions of content QT7
For students to prepare themselves for their roles in a democracy, they must be able to practice guarantees of the First Amendment, thus knowing they can make a difference.
Free expression in student media helps students learn to make critical decisions for which they are responsible, to develop integrity in their journalistic practice as well as their thinking and to engage with people on issues of importance and interest.
Without this freedom, as First Amendment expert Nat Hentoff said, the Constitution and America’s heritage would be little more than parchment under glass, outdated, fragile and sterile.
Without this freedom student journalists would be mouthing approved platitudes that are not real. Censored news is fake news; it is incomplete news and contributes little if anything to public awareness and informed civic engagement.
Policy
If you’re developing a new policy, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommends using language 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.
Question:
Why should students make decisions?
Key points/action:
For students to prepare themselves for their roles in a democracy, they must be able to practice guarantees of the First Amendment, thus knowing they can make a difference.
Free expression in student media helps students learn to make critical decisions for which they are responsible, to develop integrity in their journalistic practice as well as their thinking and to engage with people on issues of importance and interest.
Stance:
Without this freedom, as First Amendment expert Nat Hentoff said, the Constitution and America’s heritage would be little more than parchment under glass, outdated, fragile and sterile.
Without this freedom student journalists would be mouthing approved platitudes that are not real. Censored news is fake news; it is incomplete news and contributes to public misunderstanding and mistrust.
Reasoning/suggestions:
“Without journalism, democratic life dies from lack of oxygen,” Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, writes: “Without democracy, journalism loses its heartbeat. Without a serious study of journalism there can be no understanding of citizenship, democracy or community.”
Resources:
JEA statement on student free expression in a vibrant and flourishing democracy
With power comes great responsibility
First Amendment and the obligation to peacefully disrupt in a free society
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 More
Prior review v. prior restraint: Quick Tip2
In brief, the Journalism Education Association has found prior review has no educational value. Instead, JEA believes it is simply the first step toward censorship and fake news. Prior review also contributes to self-censorship and lack of trust between students, advisers and 
administrators. Prior review conflicts with JEA’s adviser code of ethics.
Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
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 before publication is not engaged in prior review.
Possible Guideline: Prior review and restraint
Question: What does prior review mean and how is it different from prior restraint?
Key points/action: In brief, the Journalism Education Association has found prior review has no educational value. Instead, JEA believes it is simply the first step toward censorship and fake news. Prior review also contributes to self-censorship and lack of trust between students, advisers and administrators. Prior review conflicts with JEA’s adviser code of ethics.
Stance: JEA would define prior review and restraint as follows:
• Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
[pullquote]Quick Tips are small tidbits of information designed to address specific legal or ethical concerns advisers and media staffs may have or have raised. These include a possible guideline, stance, rationale and resources for more information. This is the second in the series[/pullquote]
- Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
- 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 before publication is not engaged in prior review.
When an adviser requires pre-distribution changes over the objections of student editors, his/her actions then become prior restraint
Reasoning/suggestions: Students learn more when they make all publication choices. Prior review and restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
The only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely. No administrator has ever shown any educational value in prior review.
Continued democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and assuring all viewpoints have a say in their communities.
Resources: Questions advisers should ask those who want to implement prior review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
SPRC Talking points blog
SPRC Talking points
Definitions of prior review, prior restraint
Lesson: Understanding the perils of prior review and restraint
Why we keep harping about prior review
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.
Do we have the right to erase the past?
The take-down conundrum leads to debate
by Lindsay Coppens, Adviser of The Harbinger, Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, MA
Should what is posted about us (comments, articles, photos, videos) online be under our control? Should what we publish or submit for publication online be under our control despite who owns and controls the website? Do people have the right to demand content be taken down?
Overview
Online publications, both professional and scholastic, inevitably face take-down requests, which can range from polite inquiries to angry demands. Since going online four years ago, our high school news publication has had two take-down requests: one from the subject of an article and the other from a former staff writer who wanted an opinion piece removed. Both had graduated a few years prior and had different reasons for their requests.
The first wanted a news article removed because she now identified as a different gender than she did while the focus of article. The article had nothing to do with the subject’s gender identity—the student had spearheaded a school-wide recycling program that is still in place years later.
In the other case, the former staff member requested his column be removed because he had since changed his opinion. The piece was not on a controversial topic and did not take a particularly unusual stance: he argued that students’ placement in courses they request should be based on merit, not seniority.
Luckily before any request happened the staff already had a policy in place. This policy in the staff manual, however, was not their automatic answer to the requests. But it was a jumping off point for discussion and, in one case, an intense debate among the almost 20 person editorial board.
[pullquote]“The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”[/pullquote]
The policy also ultimately gave the editorial board the confidence and support to hold strong to their decision.
Policy
The policy in the corrections section of the staff manual reads: “The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”
Application
In each situation, the board gathered to discuss the request. In the first case (from the subject of the recycling article) the board quickly agreed not to take down the article. However, they decided to amend the piece, editing it to change the subject’s first name and pronoun to correlate with how she now identifies. They decided not to emphasize the changes in an editorial note because they thought they did not change the meaning or substance of the article, and more importantly they did not want to further draw attention to the shifting of the subject’s gender. She was satisfied with the edits and decision.
The request from the former staff member was trickier. While only a few of the editors were vaguely familiar with the writer because he graduated a few years earlier, they were initially divided in their responses to the request. Some immediately thought, “Why not? It’s his article; if he wants it removed, remove it.”
Then others brought up the point could a take-down set precedent, and would they remove any article, opinion, or review just because the writer no longer wanted it up?
Even though it’s not a news article, does his column mark a concern that was held by some at the point in time it was written (they said yes), and was it, in a way, part of the record of what happened and what was debated in our school? Does it matter that if it only was published in print, it couldn’t be expunged?
Others asserted that, in a way, print eventually disappears (except for when people hoard old papers) and something online potentially lasts and could easily be found forever.
Back and forth they discussed how years from now they, too, may be embarrassed by what they thought and wrote in high school, while others said, “Yeah, but you and others would also realize you were in high school.” They debated how former staff members could potentially be impacted when looking for jobs or simply if someone googles them.
Others laughed that maybe that gave yet another reason that they should step up their writing game. They discussed who “owns” any work created, submitted, and published by staff members (they agreed, and our editorial policy states, that the publication does).
Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”
All of this discussion resulted from a column that until that day none of them knew even existed, buried more than two years deep in the online archives. They all agreed in wondering why the heck this writer really wanted the piece taken down, and ultimately, after this rich debate about ethics, ownership, and control, they decided not to take down the piece.
[pullquote]Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”[/pullquote]
They did make two suggestions to the former staff member: he could post a comment in response to the piece explaining his change of mind, or he could submit a statement of similar effect that would run with the column as an author’s note.
He was frustrated with the decision, and actually begged again to have the seemingly innocuous column removed, but the Editor in Chief kindly but firmly replied that the publication’s policy was to not honor take-down requests.
Ultimately, he submitted an author’s note: a long statement of apology for his previous opinion and thanks to the guidance department for their help while he was in high school.
Maybe he’s hoping to come back to his alma mater as a guidance intern, or maybe some college friend read it and gave him a hard time about complaining about his high school course schedule. I’ll likely never know, but I do know from analytics that only a handful of people have read that column.
I also know that his take-down request led to an invigorating editorial board debate which helped to reinforce their sense of purpose and clarify why they do what they do.
Final point
Words do have power, as do the scholastic publications that publish those words. The students who run those publications have the power and responsibility to set policy, debate policy, and ultimately make their own decisions as a team.
They and the publication will be stronger for the experience.
Read MoreQuick Tips…because you asked
by John Bowen
Because of questions asked on JEA’s listserv this week, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee reposts information and guidelines from earlier content ownership and takedown guidelines.
To repost links to these materials, we will use a new format, Quick Tips, designed to respond to questions, offer suggestions and provide resources so advisers and students can make informed decisions.
Rather than term these approaches as policy suggestions, we like to refer to them as guidelines for ethical decision making and procedures to apply the ethical process.
Here are Quick Tips responses to concerns about ownership of student media content and takedown demands.
Quick Tips: Content ownership
Question: Who owns the content of student media and why should this be a concern?
Key points/action: Advisers asked several questions this week about who should own content of student media, what the possibilities were and what steps are involved in the decision-making process.
Stancec:Deciding who owns content of student media should be an important decisions for all platforms and programs. Contained within that decision are implications for the forum concept, how content can be used and by whom and on takedown demands.
Reasoning/suggestions: Students, with input from advisers, should pick a solution that best fits their situation. The choices are students own rights to content with granting access to student media for its use or student media owns the content with access rights to students.
For multiple reasons it is not a good idea to have the school own student media content.
Resource: Who owns student-produced content?
Quick Hits: Takedown demands
Question: When and why should student media take down content, in print or online?
Key points/action: 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: Policies are not meant to be easily changeable as are journalistic tools and process. Guidelines give flexibility for changing conditions and room for students to make ethical decisions.
Resources: Takedown demands? A roadmap of choices
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 MoreTalking Points about student free expression
Talking Points and terminology related to free expression legislation
With legislation giving students decision-making power over their student media comes questions about roles, purpose and standards. If the school cannot make content decisions who is responsible? What is the role of the adviser? Of students? If the adviser cannot control content, what guidelines will students follow and why?
The Student Press Law Center has said its goal for supporting free expression legislation is to approach the various New Voices Acts as comprehensive educational legislation that will benefit students at each stage of their development, while recognizing the differences between each educational environment.
[pullquote]“A core value of being a journalist is to understand the role of the press in a free society. That role is to provide an independent source of information so that a citizen can make informed decisions. It is often the case that this core value of journalistic independence requires a journalist to question authority rather than side with authority. Thus, if the role of the press in a democratic society is to have any value, all journalists – including student journalists – must be allowed to publish viewpoints contrary to those of state authorities without intervention or censorship by the authorities themselves. Without protection, the freedoms of speech and press are meaningless and the press becomes a mere channel for official thought.”
– Judge Arthur Tarnow, Dean v. Utica Community Schools[/pullquote]
The Talking Points below, and the other materials in this package, might help clarify the importance of legislation protecting free speech and what the various terms – legal and educational – mean.
Points are used with permission from the Student Press Law Center, the Journalism Education Association’s Scholastic Press Rights Committee and JEA’s Principals and the Press initiative.
Talking points
• What do you mean that state legislation rolls back Hazelwood? Isn’t that illegal?
State legislation trumps Hazelwood because it adds to Constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment for all citizens, including students. In effect, it restores Tinker by rolling back Hazelwood.
A student editor of a school-sponsored publication in a state with these laws is entitled to both the protection of The First Amendment and the protection of the state law. To put it another way, Hazelwood establishes the minimum level of high school press freedom that the First Amendment requires. No government official — federal, state or local — may act in a way, nor may lawmakers pass a law or policy, that provides individuals with less free speech protection than that required by the First Amendment, as interpreted in Hazelwood. Nothing, however, prevents state lawmakers from passing a law that requires school and government officials in their state to provide student journalists with more rights than the constitution requires.
• Aren’t the reasons for censorship in Hazelwood still censorable under this new legislation?
No. This legislation reverts to Tinker standards and unprotected speech: libel, material and substantial disruption, unwarranted invasion of privacy and obscenity.
• What are free and journalistically responsible student media?
Responsible student journalists strive for accuracy, completeness and balance to achieve and maintain credibility. The new legislation gives them a greater chance to achieve this practice.
Responsible scholastic journalists thoroughly gather and deliver coherent, accurate and complete content that serves their audience and its need to know – no matter what media platform they use.
Responsible students avoid unprotected speech — libel, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement and obscenity – and language that causes a material and substantial disruption of the school day or advocates illegal use of drugs.
Students learn to pursue and act on those standards by making final decisions of content, without review or restraint by adviser or those outside the student media staff.
Administrators can improve their schools’ learning environment by providing open access to information and the freedom to choose topics and sources essential to communities’ various audiences. Responsible administrators empower their teachers to educate students on legal and ethical responsibilities, making prior review and censorship counterproductive and unnecessary.
As Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel say in “The Elements of Journalism,” journalists’ first responsibility is to the truth, and their loyalty is to the citizens they report for.
“Journalism provides something unique to a culture,” the authors write. “Independent, reliable, accurate and comprehensive information citizens require to be free.”
• What if the school has existing policy and school administrators say the law does not apply to existing policy?
New legislation would likely win out over existing policy if the policy were contrary to the wording and intent of the legislation. Prior review, however, might still be allowed so long as administrators or school officials just reviewed and did not demand change or make changes. Prior review, though, would have to be severely limited in terms of time. Read and return by the end of the school day is reasonable.
The SPLC’s Frank LoMonte said, “The (Illinois) legislation doesn’t say speech can be prohibited if the speech violates school policies – it says you can prohibit speech that incites students to violate district policies. I’m sure what they had in mind was stuff that incites people to violate disciplinary rules (truancy, tardiness) that are not actually ‘illegal.’” If a school were to ever actually say, ‘We have a school policy against criticizing the principal’ and tried to override HB 5902 on those grounds, we would gladly challenge it.
• What happens if an adviser is ill-prepared to properly guide students to make the “right” content choices?
We would urge advisers to make use of the myriad of materials available to them from multiple sources. The Student Press Law Center, The Freedom Forum, the national and regional scholastic press associations and the Journalism Education Association all have teaching and background resources. The Scholastic Press Rights Committee also urges advisers to work with students to design a journalistically and educationally sound mission statement for student media, an editorial policy designating student media as public forums, journalistically responsible ethical guidelines that have clear processes students will follow.
All this is not just adviser and student responsibility. School boards and administrators also have an obligation to ensure advisers have adequate access to teaching materials and educational opportunities, including professional organization membership and workshops for teacher/adviser and students.
The reason we have professional organizations like JEA is to better prepare teachers, who may not be trained in journalism, for this important work. Just as some coaches may not have formal training to coach, student media advisers sometimes must learn on the job. This is not a reason to deny students the opportunity to have their voices heard by imposing administrative control over content, which only suppresses critical thinking and halts civic engagement; rather, it is a reason to encourage excellence and to support student responsibility by providing access to resources and training.
• How much is this going to cost schools?
Absolutely nothing. In fact, it might save districts money in the long run by protecting them from legal liability.
• Why shouldn’t students be subject to censorship? After all, commercial journalists are subject to editing.
Editors of commercial media news are not employed by the government; the work they edit is work-for-hire. Student journalists are not employed by the school. School administrators are, in fact, government officials. The First Amendment was crafted to protect U.S. citizens from government censorship. Student speech is protected by the First Amendment, as long as it is lawful and does not cause a “substantial disruption” of the educational process.
The Student Press Law Center provides the legal definition of what is considered, by law, to be “unprotected speech.”
Commercial journalists do not seek permission from their primary sources to publish information and, in fact, have a longstanding tradition of not letting sources see stories before publication. Administrators are primary sources for student journalists. The temptation to censor can be irresistible for administrators, especially in cases when they do not agree with the subject matter or fear that content might reflect poorly on them and their schools.
• Why should we limit the censorship authority of administrators over student media produced on school time with school resources?
Allowing genuine student media outlets that provide students with a meaningful voice on issues that truly matter to them can be a threatening idea to those used to controlling the message. However, we have a First Amendment because, as a nation, we decided that free and independent media play a vital role in our democracy – even if they sometimes are messier than state-controlled media. The fact that student media is produced using school resources does not empower administrators to dictate content. Advisers and administrators are responsible for teaching students so they can make informed content choices.
Fortunately, a number of administrators don’t look upon their student media as adversaries or threats. Instead, they view independent student media as important school assets. They see the value in providing students with forums to express their concerns, and recognize the educational opportunities provided by strong, well-supported student journalism programs.
• Are schools liable for content in student media?
There has never been a reported court decision where a public school or school district has been held legally responsible for content in student media. This legislation ensures that school districts and school administrators are protected from lawsuits. With this law, students would be legally responsible for content in their media – not school officials or school departments.
• Does this legislation give students the right to publish whatever they want?
No. This law does not protect unlawful speech – the same categories of speech that every journalist must avoid (libel, material that invades a person’s legal right to privacy, obscenity as to minors, etc.). The law also imposes an additional category of speech restriction specific to schools: High school students cannot publish speech that would materially and substantially disrupt normal school activities. This establishes a meaningful balance between administrative authority to maintain a safe and effective learning environment and student free speech rights.
• What about the questionable stories published in student media?
Such incidents have occurred, but they are certainly the exception rather than the rule. The majority of student media outlets practice journalism in a responsible manner.
The ability to cover important issues without censorship, promotes a safe and healthy school environment. Students don’t just complain about the cafeteria food. They confront real issues, especially those which are relevant to teens. While it may make administrators uncomfortable, students often cite real safety concerns in their schools. They may cite the need for repairs that have been ignored, especially those that are outside the public view to which students have access, such as locker rooms, student bathrooms and most classrooms. They often bring about change as a result of their vigilance, courage and honesty. The greater good of the students and staff superaedes the reluctance of administrators to hide the truth. They need to be held accountable by the public for not securing a facility properly. Often, board of education members will discover something that they all have read only in the school newspaper, and will investigate the matter once the conditions are exposed.
• What effects do free student media have on the school climate?
School communities need and deserve stories that reflect the authentic student experience. Giving students a voice actually can help guard against disruptive and potentially dangerous behavior by shedding light on issues of concern and empowering the powerless. In fact, coverage of sensitive and important issues often can effect positive change.
• Is there anything, legally, student journalists cannot print?
Yes. The First Amendment does not cover all forms of speech. According to the First Amendment Center, there are essentially nine types of unprotected speech: obscenity, fighting words, defamation (includes libel, slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, solicitations to commit crimes. For more information, click here.
• What does research report about student learning when they control student media?
A 2015 survey of more than 900 Kansas and Missouri high school journalists indicated students felt more confident about being an engaged and productive citizen where:
• School support of First Amendment protection empowers students
• Faculty and students respect and listen to each other fosters civic journalism
• Lighter teacher control yields greater student confidence
• More practice and experience creates confidence in promoting their involvement
• This matters because empowered student journalists said they felt they would be more critically involved in citizenship responsibilities.
Study results can be found at civicsandjournalists.org
Read More