Most Recent Articles
Why protecting student free expression is important
Students and advisers in states with recent freedom of expression legislation may want to inform their communities of educational rationale for the legislation. Additionally, those states working to pass such legislation might want to use the same points to gain support.
How free expression legislation provides value to:
- Students who can more effectively
— Demonstrate learning, critical thinking and decision making by applying the principles of free expression legislation
–Pursue opportunities in all aspects of journalism not available previously
–Show that principles of civic engagement practiced through journalism can make a difference their communities
–Display leadership skills that will be useful throughout their lives
–Develop a meaningful and effective voices important to themselves and society
- Advisers who can more effectively
–Help develop useful, effective and meaningful life-long learning skills in their students
–Train students to expand leadership and citizenship skills applicable to a changing society
–Express teaching concepts and issues that can empower students and enhance student experiences
— Activate enjoyable, meaningful and creative student-led learning experiences
–Build programs that continue to show the benefits of free and journalistically responsible student media
- Administrators who can more effectively
–Empower student journalists to take responsibility for all facets of their student media, practicing what they are taught
–Model journalism programs where standards guide student efforts
–Create an atmosphere where all groups learn and growth from each other
–Expand the vision of all involved in the community mission of civic engagement and social responsibility
–Enxourage student leadership who take advantage of the forum created by their media to improve school and community
- Communities who can more effectively
–Receive information that is accurate, thorough and represents diverse insights
–Collaborate with diverse age groups with diverse backgrounds in the learning process
–Experience the impact of student and citizen free expression
–Benefit from the benefits of creative and enlightened student leadership
–Contribute support so free and journalistically responsible student expression expands
Read More
Terms 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
Apply for First Amendment recognition
with FAFPA Award
Constitution Day participation can be a time to focus student journalists a on recognition for First Amendment practices and policies as well as civic engagement.
For instance, the FAPFA award.
This First Amendment Press Freedom Award recognizes high schools that actively support, teach and protect First Amendment rights and responsibilities of students and teachers. The recognition focuses on student-run media where students make all final decisions of content without prior review.
Roughly, here’s a sample of what the judging committee looks for in determining FAPFA recipients:
- No prior review or restraint by school faculty for all student media.
- Student staffers make all final decisions of content for all student media.
- Establish policies at all student media and school system levels or both as public forums for student expression.
- Remove Internet filters for student journalism use
- Students, advisers and administrators agree on First Amendment practices, philosophy and application across platforms.
As in previous years, schools compete for the title by first answering questionnaires submitted by an adviser and at least one editor. Those who advance to the next level will be asked to provide responses from the principal and all media advisers and student editors, indicating their support of the First Amendment. In addition, semifinalists submitted samples of their school and media online or printed policies that show student media applying their freedoms.
Schools recognized as meeting FAPFA criteria will be honored at the opening ceremony of the JEA/NSPA Spring National High School Journalism Convention in Seattle.
First round applications are due annually by Dec. 1. Downloadable applications for 2017 will be available on the JEA website in the fall.
Save this link and apply now.
Meet the challenges raised by Constitution Day. Apply to be a FAPFA-recognized school.
This is the 17th year for the award.
Read MoreWhat is media role
during election campaigns?
What is the role of media during election campaigns?
Description
Students will design ethical guidelines they can use this fall and in later coverage (reporting and viewpoint) of elections, candidates and issues.
Students will work on the following questions:
- What makes comprehensive reporting about an election, a candidate or political issues?
- How would students achieve these comprehensive stories?
- What processes would students use to build comprehensive coverage?
- What resources would students use to build comprehensive coverage?
- What ethical principles could they apply to their coverage?
Objectives
- Students will investigate the best processes to investigate and verify political claims and issues in terms of print, broadcast, visual and online platforms.
- Students will develop ethical standards and questioning and verifying political issues.
- Students will create their own procedural processes to apply these ethical standards.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.7 | Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words in order to address a question or solve a problem. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.1 | Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2 | Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.6 | Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others. |
Introduction
Journalists and citizens have independently raised concern this election year, seemingly more so than other years, about the verification process for what candidates say in campaigns, what “facts” are raised with issues and who is the most honest. Similar concerns exist about information passed on by state and local candidates, including those running for school board and community offices.
This lesson will enable student journalists to create ethical guidelines or processes, or to sharpen existing ones, enabling them to better fulfill their social responsibility of getting accurate and complete information and presenting it in context.
One note: If more current questions of a particular candidate’s action occurs, please feel free to replace, or add, resources.
Length
150 minutes (three 50-minute classes)
Materials / resources
Balance, fairness and a proudly provocative presidential candidate
Mirror and candle theories of the press
Social responsibility of media
Ethical guidelines and procedures model
Lesson step-by-step
Homework/preparation
- Student discovery — 40 minutes
Have students go to Balance, fairness and a proudly provocative presidential candidate and 5 types of fallacies for historical perspective and current thinking on media roles during elections and with political issues. After reading the links and in Day 1 of the exercise, students will share their findings in a list of key points with others on their team. Each group will be ready to discuss them in small discussion.
Discussion points could include:
- Is the role of media to report is said or to try to show perspective of what is said?
- Do media have an ethical obligation to show context and background of information in political campaigns?
- What is the best was to ethically serve the reading and viewing publics about information presented in political campaigns or on political issues?
- What is the social responsibility of media in election campaigns and issues?
- Do these approaches also apply to scholastic media?
- Assignment — 10 minutes
For homework, assign each student to prepare a beginning list of ethical guidelines for approaches that would exhibit social responsibility in covering election year candidates and issues. This will aid them to compile a working list of ethical guidelines for their teams.
Day 1
- Group breakdown (5 minutes)
Students will be divided into groups representing print, broadcast, visual and online media (depending on class size there might be more than one group of each).
- Student work time (35 minutes)
Students will compile ethical guidelines in each of their areas for covering political elections, candidates and issues for their platforms. Such guidelines might overlap.
- Large-group discussion/reports (15 minutes)
Each group should report briefly on what it discussed, focusing on unsolved issues or approaches.
- Homework/practical application
A student (or team of students) will take their group’s work home and shape it into a poster for class discussion and acceptance the next day.
Day 2
- Presentation — 35 minutes
Each team shares its concepts, sources and presentation attempting to reach class consensus.
Teams will discuss the ethical issues raised in the coverage and well as the news principles and judgment of story and card selection and prepare to adapt agreed upon suggestions into the staff manual and ethical guidelines.
Alternative/additional activities
Consider these additional questions:
- In verifying information, do journalists/can journalists step outside the traditional role of objectivity?
- Should they do so in their reporting if they feel they have enough facts and feel it is their social responsibility? How do they know what is a fact?
- Should opinion writers, in particular, follow the same criteria as content reporters and verify sources they use in their pieces?
- Why or why not?
Extension
Students could write ethical guidelines addressing political coverage.
Read More
Political Correctness and Free Speech
Political Correctness and Free Speech
Description
Students examine the gray area between political correctness and free speech through peer discussion and real-world examples.
Objectives
- Students will understand the meaning and connotation of “politically correct” in different contexts.
- Students will examine the relationship between offensive language and free speech.
- Students will evaluate the power of language and what considerations are important when considering the offensiveness of speech.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1 | Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grades 11-12 topics, texts, and issues, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.11-12.1 | Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain. |
| CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.1 | Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. |
Length
45-60 minutes
Materials / resources
CD Political Correctness and Free Speech Materials
- Individual Student Statement Check
- Group Real-Life Scenarios
- Student Scenario Resolutions
Lesson step-by-step
(5 minutes) Begin lesson by passing out the opening sheet “’Political Correctness’ and Free Speech” to all students and explain that charges of political correctness versus free speech have heightened during the current election season and that they will be investigating the relationship between political correctness and our First Amendment free speech rights. Read the introductory paragraphs at the top of the sheet aloud (or have students read them to themselves.
(5 minutes) Have the students (individually) score their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements on the sheet. Remind them that they will be tasked with talking with other students and should be prepared to defend their thoughts to others.
(5 minutes) Have students form into groups of 3-5 (or turn to groups already formed) and discuss their answers. Their goal should be to compare answers and agree AS A GROUP which statement they AGREE WITH THE MOST and which statement they DISAGREE with the most. Say and/or post the following instructions somewhere in the room: “As a group, CIRCLE the statement your group AGREEs WITH the most, and UNDERLINE the statement the group DISAGREES WITH the most.”
(5-10 minutes) Call on groups one at a time to explain which statement they agreed with most and which one they disagreed with the most, with some brief explanation (depending on the time you have, some time can be provided for students in other groups to raise hands and comment or chime in). It is also helpful to score the statements on the board to see if the class, as a whole, mostly agreed with and/or disagreed with the same ones the most (write number 1-6 on the board for the statements and write “A” next to one any time a group agreed with in the most and “D” next to any one a group disagrees with the most).
(10 minutes) Hand out ONE scenario sheet to each group (there are three scenarios, so there will be some repeats if you have more than 3 groups, but that is fine). Groups should read the scenarios to themselves, discuss the questions, and write down answers to them (and be prepared to explain them to the class).
(10-20 minutes) Call on groups by scenario (say, all groups with the “Graduation Speaker” sheet, first) to explain their thoughts on how people responded to the language and how it impacted free speech rights and what they thought the reaction should be. Once a scenario is covered, read aloud the real-world resolution to the conflict from the “Example Resolutions” sheet and call for some final discussion of each, time permitting.
(5 minutes) Once every scenario has been covered, ask the students to turn their original “‘Political Correctness’ and Free Speech” sheets to the blank, back side and give a quick, written response to the following prompt, which will serve as the exit ticket or final assessment for the activity (read aloud and/or written on board): “For what reasons, if ever, do you think people should alter or remove speech because of its offensiveness or the harm it may cause to others? Explain why.”
Differentiation
- Scenarios could be read aloud to particular students.
- Groups could also be formed purposefully to pair lower-performing students with higher-performing ones to give all students a variety of input and immediate assistance understanding difficult words or concepts.
Read More