The perks of being a wallflower:
How a school district escaped a lawsuit
by fostering an independent student press QT36
Quick Tips: Student First Amendment Rights
Yeo v. Town of Lexington (1997) in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
by Jan Ewell
Because Lexington High School students made all the editorial, business and staffing decisions for both the LHS Yearbook and the school paper, a suit against the district failed. The school’s superintendent, principal, the two publication advisers and the five school members of the school committee escaped unharmed from the suit that alleged they were violating the First and Fourteenth amendments when the school publications refused two ads.
In 1992 the Lexington School Committee in Lexington, Massachusetts debated making condoms available to students without parental permission. The Musket, the Lexington High School newspaper, ran news articles and editorials on the debate.
Douglas Yeo, a parent and the leaders of a group opposing the condom-distribution policy, complained to the school’s principal about the Musket’s coverage, saying it did not accurately reflect his group’s position. The principal acted in accord with Massachusetts’s law, which gives editorial control to the students under the Tinker standard. He directed Yeo to the student editors of the paper, saying they would make any decisions regarding corrections. He suggested Yeo write a letter to the editor. Yeo did not contact the student paper.
In March of 1993 the voters of Lexington approved the condom distribution policy. In November Yeo and his group submitted a $200 check and a full page ad to the yearbook. The ad read, “ABSTINENCE: The Healthy Choice. Sponsored by: Lexington Parents Information Network (LEXNET)” followed by a post office box number.
In an editorial meeting considered the ad, the student editors of the yearbook decided it was out of context with their publication; most of their ads congratulated graduates. Some came from family, others from local businesses used by students. The Yearbook had an unwritten policy not to publish political advocacy ads.
Through their adviser (this was before cell phones) they asked Yeo to rewrite the ad to reflect the usual patterns. Yeo refused and threatened to sue the yearbook unless his ad was published as submitted. The students discussed the ad again and decided to stand by their original decision. Yeo apparently felt the students were censoring him and faxed in response, “based on our understanding of the right of equal access and free speech, we do not accept your rejection of our ad and ask that you reconsider your decision to censor it.”
In January of 1994 Yeo submitted the same ad to the Musket, the student run newspaper, with an added line reading, “For accurate information on abstinence, safer sex and condoms, contact. . .” The student editors met and decided to reject the ad. Though a number of students at the meeting supported Yeo’s pro-abstinence views, they did not want the Musket to turn into a bulletin board for advocacy on lifestyle issues. Additionally, they were uncomfortably with having to run an ad because someone had threated to sue them.
They wrote Yeo saying that if they had accepted his ad, they “would feel obligated to accept other political statements that might come our way. We do not wish to put ourselves in such position. Ultimately Ad space is not a public forum and for that reason the Musket reserves the right to select what Advertisements it chooses to print.”
Yeo threatened the town and school authorities with legal action. Though the administration wished to avoid lawsuits, they continued to support the students’ control of the content of their publication. This proved fortunate for them because the only forms of government (including schools and the teachers as government employees) are restrained by the First Amendment. If the school, that is, the government, had decided whether to run the ad, they may indeed have violated Yeo’s rights.
The students suggested that Yeo write a letter to the editor; the Letter to the Editor section was a public forum. Yeo refused and insisted his ad be run as submitted, “as is our legal right.” He concluded, “You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t even have to like. You just have to print it. Touché. ”
Yeo did sue the superintendent, the principal, the advisers of the yearbook and newspaper, and the Lexington school committee, claiming that they were denying his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He did not name the publication or the students, who in fact were the ones who rejected his ad, but as private entities and as citizens the students and their publication could not violate his First or Fourteenth amendment rights.
Ultimately the U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Yeo. Student journalists do have the right to refuse ads. They are not government agents. Since only the government is in a position to violate the First Amendment or the Fourteenth, there was no suppression of Yeo’s rights.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the school district was not responsible for the students’ decisions. “As a matter of law, we see no legal duty here on the part of school administrators to control the content of the editorial judgments of student editors of publications.”
Under Massachusetts law, the students control the content of the student publications. At Lexington High School, the policy and practice had been for the students to make editorial and business decisions. School officials were not responsible for those decisions, and so there were no First or Fourteenth amendment violations.
The district was protected from judgment in the suit because the students controlled the student media.
And yes, both publications changed their unwritten policy concerning political advocacy ads into clear written policies.
Note: This is not a Supreme Court Case. In May of 1998 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the First Circuit Court’s decision stand. It is the law in only the First Circuit, that is Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island, but it has been cited as a persuasive precedent in similar case.
Resources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1136678.html
http://principalsguide.org/the-first-amendment-and-student-media/
http://www.splc.org/article/1998/08/court-refuses-to-hear-advertiser
Read MoreMuzzle Hazelwood with strong journalism,
status as an open public forum
Dean v. Utica Community Schools, 2004
Quick Tip 25: Student First Amendment Rights
by Jan Ewell
The principal of Utica High School told the student newspaper, the Arrow, to cut an article by student journalist Katy Dean, as well as an accompanying editorial and an editorial cartoon. The students had written about a couple, Rey and Joanne Frances, who were suing the school district. They claimed idling diesel buses in the school garage next to their home had caused the husband’s cancer.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier allows administrators to censor for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The principal said that the articles were based on “unreliable” sources and that the article was “highly inaccurate.” Perhaps these reasons were given as his legitimate pedagogical concerns.
The students published a black box with the word “Censored” across it in white lettering, and an editorial on censorship. A local newspaper later published Dean’s censored article.
The case was decided in the United States District Court in Katy Dean’s favor because of the Arrow’s status as a limited public forum, and on the quality of the journalism.
Establishing a Public Forum in Practice and Policy
The judge ruled that the student paper was a public forum, even though it was produced by a class for school credit. He used the nine criteria established in Draudt v. Wooster.[link] Because it was a public forum and therefore under Tinker v. Des Moines not under Hazelwood, the principal had violated the students’ rights.
To determine if the paper was a public forum, the judge looked at the practice of the publication. In its 25 year history, the officials at the school had never intervened in the editorial process of the publication. The students had no practice of submitting content to school officials for prior review, nor did the faculty adviser regulate the topics the newspaper covered. In practice the paper was a public forum.
School policy also supported the “Arrow’s” status as a public forum. The curriculum guide and the course descriptions provided evidence that it should enjoy the protections of Tinker.
Clarifying When Censorship is Permissible Under Hazelwood
Though the judge ruled the paper was under the Tinker standard, he also closely examined the censored article by Katy Dean using the Hazelwood standards of fairness, research and writing. He found that, even under Hazelwood, “the suppression of the article was unconstitutional.” The school officials had claimed the work was “inaccurate” because they disagreed with the opinions of people quoted in the story. What the district called “inaccurate” was simply an attempt to disguise “what is, in substance, a difference of opinion with its content,” the judge wrote. Even under the Hazelwood standard, the officials had violated the students’ rights.
[pullquote]Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” –– Harry S. Truman [/pullquote]
In his decision, the judge quoted President Harry S. Truman: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
He also quoted President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.”
Dean v. Utica shows two avenues for student journalists to free themselves from Hazelwood. The first is to be a public forum in either “policy or practice.” The second is to produce high quality journalism.
Resources:
Dean v. Utica Community Schools
http://jea.org/home/curriculum-resources/deancase/
Read MoreJournalists as professional skeptics
by Kristin Taylor
Title:
Journalists as Professional Skeptics
Description
The first lesson explores ethical decision-making about what to publish and the importance of verification in that process. It is a case study that puts students in the role of an editor as they walk through a hypothetical story pitch and consequences of publishing an unverified story. The activity ends with a class reflection about best practices for verification and accountability. This lesson works best after teachers have already discussed how their schools are affected by state and federal laws (see SPLC First Amendment rights diagram) so students are familiar with their First Amendment rights as student journalists.
The second lesson builds on the activity from the day before by discussing the purpose of skepticism during the reporting process by looking at a real-life situation where a professional journalist was duped. It also examines the balance between healthy skepticism and unhealthy cynicism.
Objectives
- Students will be able to explain the role of the editor as coach and explore how an editor can coach reporters during the reporting process.
- Students will be able to identify red flags during the reporting process that suggest questionable sourcing and a need to verify information.
- Students will be able to describe the importance of verifying information before publishing a story through participating in a hypothetical role play surrounding an unverified news story.
- Students will be able to describe why it is important for journalists to be skeptical by reading and discussing a Rolling Stone article about a rape victim; the article turned out to be inaccurate.
- Students will be able to employ strategies for fact-checking and determining when a source has a fact wrong or lied.
- Students will reflect on how this may impact their own journalistic practice.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.10 | By the end of grade 9, read and comprehend literary nonfiction in the grades 9-10 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend literary nonfiction at the high end of the grades 9-10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.3 | Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over the course of the text. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1.C | Propel conversations by posing and responding to questions that relate the current discussion to broader themes or larger ideas; actively incorporate others into the discussion; and clarify, verify, or challenge ideas and conclusions. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.2 | Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.4 | Present information, findings, and supporting evidence clearly, concisely, and logically such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose, audience, and task. |
Length
60 minutes
Materials / Resources
Whiteboard and markers
Teacher laptop and digital projector
Slideshow: “If You Were the Editor” (See the bottom of this lesson)
Lesson step-by-step
Step 1 — Warm Up (5 minutes)
As students enter the classroom, the first slide from the PowerPoint “If you were the editor” projected on the board. Read the prompt and have them journal for five minutes:
SLIDE 1: “Sometimes students want to report on some really tough subjects. How should an editor respond to a story likely to cause community outrage or unrest? Why or why not? Journal for five minutes and then we will share our thoughts.”
Step 2: — Class Discussion (5 minutes)
Allow students to share their initial thoughts and then advance to the next slide. Ask a student to read the question and respond: “Why might editors be tempted to avoid certain stories?” Discuss briefly as a class. (Possible answers: fear of “getting in trouble,” complaints from parents, too controversial. Teacher may want to introduce two types of censorship: external, where someone outside of the staff censors, and self-censorship where the reporters themselves decide not to pursue a story out of fear of the consequences. This is not the same as using good news judgment to determine whether or not a story is worth covering.)
Step 3 — Small Group Activity (15 minutes)
Advance to the next slide, which lays out the case study. Have a student read it out loud and then break the class into groups of 4-5. Students have 10 minutes to discuss this scenario, using the discussion questions below.
SLIDE 2: The situation: You are an editor. One of your student reporters wants to do an article on a student who has been expelled from school. That expelled student is alleging misconduct on the part of one of the school administrators and claims she was expelled just to cover up what the administrator did. However, the administration says that, due to confidentiality agreements, they cannot comment on the situation at all.
Discuss these questions with your group, using your staff manual for guidance.
- Do you have any initial concerns about this story? Do you see any red flags? What questions would you initially ask the reporter about the story? (Possible discussion/responses: Is a student being expelled newsworthy when it’s primarily a private event? How can they verify this expulsion given that administrators cannot legally comment on confidential situations like this one? How can they verify the student’s allegation of misconduct? Are there public records or multiple reliable sources willing to go on the record? If not, students should be concerned about libel law.)
- Who are the stakeholders in this story? How will a story like this affect them? The school as a whole? Why is that important to consider? (Possible answers: the expelled student and his/her family, the school’s reputation)
- Would you feel tempted to not pursue this story? What information/sources would the reporter need and what steps would she need to take in order for you to feel comfortable with this story being written?
Step 4 — Class Discussion/Role Play (15 minutes)
After 10 minutes or once all groups have completed their initial discussion, advance to the next slide. Remind them that they are playing the role of the adviser. You can complete this part of the lesson through discussion or role play, with the student taking on the role of the editor and the adviser pretending to be the student reporter who is determined to write the story.
SLIDE 3: Questions to consider: How would you coach the reporter during
the process if …
- The reporter is persistent and tenacious but still can’t get any comment from any administrator about the expulsion? (These school leaders are unable to comment on personal information like this by lie, so they don’t really have a choice about commenting. You may want to tease out why this is so problematic — we will definitely only be getting one side of the story.)
- The reporter cannot verify that any misconduct took place, though the expelled student maintains it did? (Not being able to verify should stop good reporters and editors in their tracks. This scenario should be setting off lots of warning bells, but don’t give this away yet; the teacher will reveal consequences in the next slide.)
- Despite these problems, the reporter wants to publish the story? She promises she will frame any claims the expelled student makes with “allegedly” and make it clear she reached out for comment and administrators declines, citing confidentiality agreements. (While it’s good that the student would include a disclosure statement, students may not know that simply adding the word “allegedly” does not protect them from liability if they publish harmful, false information. This scenario should be setting off lots of warning bells, but don’t give this away yet; the teacher will reveal consequences in the next slide.)
Before advancing to the next slide, tell students that, ultimately, the editorial board DID decide to go ahead and publish. Ask them how they feel and if they have any predictions about the outcome.
Step 5 — Assessment (20 minutes)
Advance to the next slide and have a student read what happens next:
Slide 4: Aftermath: The reporter publishes her story, and the administration is very upset. The administrator accused of misconduct contacts the adviser and you as the editor and says it was irresponsible for you to let it be published, as it is one-sided and libelous. She says she is considering shutting down the paper entirely given this situation.
Another source comes forward and tells you that she heard the expelled student made the entire story about the misconduct up. Upon further questioning, the expelled student admits it was a lie.
- What processes along the way could have prevented this from happening? (Potential responses: Looking for any kind of firsthand verification of the misconduct beyond the initial source; doing follow-up interviews with the source and asking for some kind of evidence of these accusations; stopping the story when verification became impossible.)
- Who should respond to these developments, and how should that person or persons respond? How do you rebuild public trust? (Potential Responses: If students have an error correction policy established, they should look at now to see what steps they need to follow. Since this is such an extreme case and could cause a libel lawsuit, students should also consider more public responses, such as writing a letter to the community with a transparent accounting of what happened. Reading this blog about how one staff dealt with a recent editorial mistake might also be helpful.)
Either in small groups or as a whole class, discuss how students feel about this situation and brainstorm responses to the two questions.
Advance to the final slide (SLIDE 5) and ask students to write an individual email to you describing what they learned from the activity and how they better understand the importance of verification before publishing a story.
Differentiation
Students with writing challenges could talk to the teacher in person rather than send an email describing what they learned.
Additional Resources:
Ask these 10 questions to make good ethical decisions
SPLC First Amendment rights diagram
“They need the freedom to make mistakes, too,” Lindsay Coppens, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Day 2
Length
60 minutes
Materials:
Whiteboard and markers
Teacher laptop and digital projector
Student laptops
Paper slips with story scenario
“Columbia School of Journalism report on Rolling Stone’s ‘A Rape on Campus’”
“How a teacher prepared her students to take on the adults and win.”
Lesson step-by-step
Step 1 — Warm up (5 minutes)
Projected on the board:
skeptic |ˈskeptik| noun: a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
Given the “You be the editor” activity we did last class, why do you think some say a journalist’s primary job is to be a professional skeptic?
Students share thoughts on this warm-up question. Potential follow-up questions:
- How would yesterday’s activity have gone differently if the student journalist and editors had been more skeptical? (Possible answers: Students would have seen red flags such as lack of verification and stopped the story if it couldn’t be verified; students wouldn’t have been as likely to believe the accusing student.)
- Why is it dangerous to trust sources without verifying, even if you think there are trustworthy? (Possible answers: Sources lie sometimes because they are embarrassed or worried about getting in trouble, but even if they aren’t purposefully lying, they may be incorrect. They may not know the real story even if they think they do, or they may misremember something.)
- What would you do if you suspected a source was lying to you? (Possible answers: Attempt to verify the source’s story through other credible sources; discuss the situation with the editors and adviser; depending on the situation, the reporter might confront the source. If verification isn’t possible, do not use the information.)
- Is it possible to become too skeptical? What might the consequence of that be? (Possible answers: reporters may become cynical and think everyone is a liar rather than remembering the purpose of their work; reporters may continue to doubt even after reliable verification.)
Say, “Today we are going to be looking at a couple of cases where journalists either were or were not skeptical and the consequence of their choices.”
Step 2 — Small group activity (20 minutes)
Break students into groups of three or four and hand out a slip of paper with the following on it:
You are a reporter for a professional publication and have heard about how a nearby university is one of 86 schools under federal investigation due to being suspected of denying students their equal right to education by inadequately handling sexual-violence complaints. After doing some initial research, you find a student who says she was gang-raped by a group of male students at a fraternity party; she’s willing to be the subject of your story, but only if you change her name and don’t reveal her identity. She claims the university is trying to sweep the allegations under the rug, which fits the picture painted by what you have learned about the federal investigation. The school and the fraternity deny this student’s claims.
- Before you begin, do you have any personal biases you need to be aware of?
- How will you check out this source’s story? What evidence will you need to feel confident it’s accurate and honest?
- If you do find enough evidence, will you grant the source’s request to change her name to hide her identity? Look at your staff manual guidelines for using unnamed sources and be ready to justify why you would or would not be willing to proceed.
- Ethically, who else do you need to talk to before writing this story?
- What, if anything, would make you decide to not use this source?
Step 3 — Class discussion (35 minutes)
After 20 minutes of discussions, each group presents and compares its responses to the four questions. The teacher will then say, “This scenario you were working on was based on a real situation. In 2014, a reporter from Rolling Stone wrote a 9,000-word story about a rape victim she called “Jackie” at the University of Virginia, which was indeed being federally investigated. The problem? The story ended up being untrue. Other publications such as the Washington Post debunked “Jackie’s” story, and the reporter and Rolling Stone publisher later lost a multimillion dollar defamation suit brought by a UVA administrator. So let’s talk about what went wrong and the consequences of this situation.”
The class will go around the room reading one graf each until finished with this article: “Columbia School of Journalism report on Rolling Stone’s ‘A Rape on Campus’”
Discussion questions:
- What went wrong? What mistakes did this reporter make? (Possible answers: Main issue: The reporter relied on a single source. Reporter never got in touch with “Jackie’s” friends to verify her story; Reporter didn’t speak directly to “Randall/Ryan” to verify his statement; Editors did not disclose that reporter could not verify the existence of “Drew” and had not spoken to him; the reporter did not give the fraternity enough information about the story she was working on for them to adequately respond.)
- Who was harmed by this false story? (Possible answers: the members of the fraternity, the school administrator accused of not taking the allegation seriously, the reputation of Greek organizations, UVA administration and general reputation, Rolling Stone’s reputation, the reporter herself, students who really have been raped)
- What other consequences might this story have beyond the defamation lawsuit the reporter lost? (Make sure students talk about the damage to real rape victims and how much more difficult it will be to report a similar story in the future.)
Assessment: As a ticket-to-leave, students share a takeaway from this lesson; how will it impact their reporting in the future?
Extension: Now let’s look at a situation where reporters were skeptical despite a lot of pressure. Read this article and come prepared to discuss tomorrow: “How a teacher prepared her students to take on the adults and win.”
Additional Resources
Skeptical Knowing presentation
Using anonymous sources with care
Quick Hit: Using unnamed sources
Slideshow: If you were the editor
Read MoreForum status of student media: Quick Tip1
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.
Key points/action: In the post-Hazelwood world, it is more important than ever for student journalists and their advisers to know what policies their school has adopted relating to student publications or student expression.
[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 first in the series. [/pullquote]
The language of those policies (whether they give editorial control to students or keep it in the hands of school officials) and the amount of freedom that students have traditionally operated under at the school can determine whether Hazelwood or Tinker sets the standard for what school officials will be allowed to censor.
A designated 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.
Often the most important question in that analysis is which of two First Amendment standards they have to meet.
- The Tinker standard (as defined by the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)), which says schools can censor only if their actions are necessary to avoid a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others. This language may sound vague, but as the courts have interpreted it, the Tinker standard is a very difficult one for school officials to meet and typically requires them to show evidence of physical disruption before their censorship will be allowed.
- The Hazelwood standard (as defined by the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)), which says schools can censor if their actions are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. Although this standard requires school officials to justify every act of censorship as educationally sound, it is a standard that gives school officials more extensive authority to silence or punish student expression.
Stance: Of the three types of forums, open public, limited public and closed, JEA strongly endorses the designated (open) public forum concept.
In the Hazelwood case, 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.
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.
Reasoning/suggestions: 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.
Two things are important about the phrasing of this policy statement. First is the use of the words “designated public forum” as opposed to “limited public forum” or other similar language. Although many once believed the two phrases were interchangeable, some recent court decisions have suggested that using the word “limited” opens the door to school censorship as permitted under Hazelwood.
Second, using the phrase “student editors make all content decisions” is in many ways a clearer restatement of the meaning of “designated public forum.” It conveys the intent behind the public forum phrase anyone unfamiliar with the relevant Supreme Court rulings should understand.
To help schools understand what we consider public forums, please note these definitions:
- Forums by policy: An official school policy exists that designates student editors as the ultimate authority regarding content. School officials actually 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.
- Forums by practice: A school policy may or may not exist regarding student media, but administrators have a “hands-off” approach and have empowered students to control content decisions. Advisers teach and offer students advice, but they neither control nor make final decisions regarding content.
Resources
When your publication is a public forum and when it is not, Mark Goodman, Knight chair in Scholastic Journalism
Choosing your forum status is like choosing the best medicine, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Read More
JEA is proud to sign
Statement in Support of Freedom of the Press
“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 censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
As organizations committed to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the press, we are alarmed by the efforts of the President and his administration to demonize and marginalize the media and to undermine their ability to inform the public about official actions and policies.
Such efforts include the President’s refusal to answer questions posed by a reporter from CNN because the President asserts it promotes “fake news”; charges that the media “manipulated” images of the inauguration; false accusations that the media has covered up terrorist attacks; and repeated claims that the media is “failing” and “dishonest.” All of this recently culminated in the President calling the New York Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, and NBC News “the enemy of the American People!” and in the exclusion of representatives of various media outlets from a press briefing. In these and other examples, the President and his designees have attempted to villainize and discredit the press for any reporting he dislikes. However, the job of the press is not to please the President but to inform the public, a function that is essential to democracy.
The expressions of disdain for the press and its role in democracy by federal officials send a signal to state and local officials. In the aftermath of an election season that witnessed outright intimidation of journalists in communities around the country, there is a compelling need for highly placed federal officials to acknowledge the crucial role of a free press under our Constitution and the responsibility of government officials at all levels to respect it. In one chilling example, multiple individuals who identified themselves as journalists were arrested, detained, and charged with felonies while simply doing their job: reporting on Inauguration Day protests in Washington, D.C. Those arrests were made by local police and pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, both of which displayed an alarming lack of concern for fundamental constitutional rights. The fact that those charges have since been dropped suggests that the arrests were unwarranted and highlights the need for our nation’s leaders to set national policy that unequivocally supports a free and independent press and the public’s right to know.
Our Constitution enshrines the press as an independent watchdog and bulwark against tyranny and official misconduct. Its function is to monitor and report on the actions of public officials so that the public can hold them accountable. The effort to delegitimize the press undermines democracy, and officials who challenge the value of an independent press or question its legitimacy betray the country’s most cherished values and undercut one of its most significant strengths.
The First Amendment protects the right to protest, dissent, and petition government for a redress of grievances, but these rights cannot be exercised without a free press that provides information to the public. Together, these rights represent the constitutionally sanctioned method for the public to oppose government policies and activities and to seek change. The wisdom of this system can be seen in parts of the world where such a right does not exist, or is not honored, and violent opposition is the only available avenue to express opposition or remedy injustice.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms all efforts by elected and appointed officials to penalize, delegitimize, or intimidate members of the press.
March 2, 2017
Endorsed by:
Alliance for Community Media
Alliance for Media Arts + Culture
American Association of Law Libraries
American Booksellers Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties of the
District of Columbia
American Copy Editors Society
American Library Association
American Society of Business
Publication Editors
American Society of Journalists and Authors
American Society of Magazine Editors
American Society of Media Photographers
American Society of News Editors
Arizona Press Club
Asian American Journalists Association
Associated Collegiate Press
Associated Press Media Editors
Associated Press Photo Managers
Association of Alternative Newsmedia
Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
Association of American University Presses
Association of Food Journalists
Association of Health Care Journalists
Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication
Association of Research Libraries
Association of Schools of Journalism
and Mass Communication
Authors Guild
Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending
Dissent Foundation
CCTV Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Responsive Politics
Center for Scholastic Journalism
College Media Association
Colorado Press Women
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Committee to Protect Journalists
Demand Progress
Education Writers Association
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Freedom to Read Foundation
Free Press
Free Speech Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Institute for Nonprofit News’
Investigative Reporters and Editors
Journalism and Women Symposium
Journalism Education Association
Kurt Vonnegut Museum and Library
Local Independent Online News Publishers
Media Freedom Foundation
Media Law Resource Center
Military Reporters and Editors
National Association of Black Journalists
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
National Association of Science Writers
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
National Press Foundation
National Press Photographers Association
National Scholastic Press Association
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
National Writers Union
Native American Journalists Association
New England First Amendment Coalition
North American Agricultural Journalists
Online News Association
OpentheGovernment.org
PEN America
People For the American Way Foundation
Project Censored
Radio Television Digital News Association
Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press
Reporters Without Borders
Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics
and Law
Student Press Law Center
Sunlight Foundation
The Media Consortium
The NewsGuild-CWA
Tully Center for Free Speech
Unity: Journalists For Diversity
Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts
Washington-Baltimore News Guild
Women’s Media Center
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Additional Endorsers:
City and Regional Magazine Association
Community of Literary Magazines and Presses
New York Financial Writers’ Association
Overseas Press Club
Small Press Distribution
The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
Read More