Enjoy up to 55% Off! Code: JOLLY Ends: 12/5 Details
Apply
  1. Help

Government Mixbook Case Project

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

Government Mixbook Case Project - Page Text Content

BC: The End

FC: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier By: Blair Bartholf and Jordyn Surratt

1: Table Of Contents | -Background Information for Case- pgs 2-5 -Case for the School-pgs 6-8 -Case for the Students- pgs 10-13 -Facts-pgs 14-17 -Conclusion-pgs 18-21

2: Background Info | Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett were the students of the newspaper. | May 11, 1983: Robert E. Reynolds- principal of Hazelwood East High School in Missouri | Large suburban high school of 1800 students

3: Background Info | These students chose to write about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on teenagers. | They believed that the Principal Reynolds censorship violated their constitutional rights. | Principal Reynold's took out these articles before the paper was published.

4: The Problem | “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of expression or association.” | Freedom of speech is important in a democracy, but is freedom of speech important in schools?

5: Students’ Constitutional Rights to Freedom Of expression | Landmark decision for children's constitutional rights in public schools: Tinker v. Des Moines independent Community School District. | Court found that wearing black arm bands was a type of expression protected by the First Amendment. As long as it doesn't disrupt or interfere with school activities, or cause disturbance, they have the right to express an opinion.

6: Case for the School | Board of Education v. Pico dealt with “objectionable” and “improper” books being removed from the library, demanded by the commands of parents. The school board removed all but one. 5 students, including Pico, claimed that the school board’s action had violated their First Amendment freedoms. | Bethel School District v. Fraser Matthew. Fraser made a nomination speech at a student assembly containing many “double entendres” He was suspended and the Court held that his punishment did not violate the First Amendment, it is important to keep “habits and manners of civility” within a school.

7: Case for the School | Spectrum is not a public forum entitled to first amendment protection. | *public forum- place that the general public has traditionally used for free speech activities. In these places, government cannot prohibit speech except to impose reasonable requirements.

8: Case for the School | The rights of students in public schools are not automatically the same as the right of adults in other settings. | Because there is no right to freedom of expression in a classroom, lawyers for the school argued, as long as the Principal’s decision was “reasonable” | Petitioners final argument: even if Spectrum was entitled to the First Amendment protection, the court of appeals had applied the wrong test for what would permit the censorship.

9: Reasons the censorship was reasonable: | -concerned about the privacy of the pregnant teenagers, their parents, and their boyfriends. -by publishing an article about teenage pregnancy, the school might mistakenly be thought to endorse teenage sexual activity. -responsibility to protect younger students from exposure to information or ideas that they were not mature enough to understand is the principals job. -article didn’t air both sides of the issue and violated basic rules of fairness that all journalism students should learn

10: Case for the Students | -In the world outside of school, editors and publishers determine what should be published in the newspaper | -government cannot tell them what to publish and what not to publish. | -In the school, the student journalists and advisers are like the editors and publishers. The principal is like the government.

11: Case of the Students | as a newspaper it was entitled to strict protection of constitutional freedoms such as a limited public forum would be. | the articles on teen pregnancy didn’t invade the right to privacy because there was nothing secret or private about the fact that the girls were pregnant.

12: Case of the Students | -“appropriateness” is not a proper standard to justify censorship. | -The principal might consider something inappropriate that is subjective or personal to him or her.

13: Case of the Students | Spectrum is a limited public forum | Rules must advise students what can be censored and by what process. Summarizing the decisions of the lower courts, the respondents argued that the district must adopt written regulations

14: Facts | -American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide organization committed to defending constitutional rights. They agreed with the students | -American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide organization committed to defending constitutional rights. They agreed with the students | -The board refused to agree to the requests of the ACLU

15: Facts | -August 19, 1983 the student filed their lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. | -May 9, 1985 Judge Nangle reached his decision- he ruled that the school had no violated the First Amendment rights of the students. | -July 7, 1986 the Court of Appeals issued its decision. The court had reversed the decision of the district court and ruled in favor of the students.

16: Facts | -Monday January 13, 1988 | -cathy kuhlmeier and her colleagues had lost their case -the principal and the school district had won | -school administrators had the power to censor the articles in question. -this did not violate the students first amendment rights to freedom of speech or freedom of press.

17: Facts | Chief Judge for the Eastern District- John F. Nangle | When a federal Court of Appeals determines that a government official has violated somebody’s rights under the US Constitution, the official can ask the Supreme Court to agree to review the decision. | -Done by filing a petition for writ of certiorari- comes from the latin word meaning “to make certain in regard to.” | January 20 ,1987 the Supreme Court granted cert becoming Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

18: Supreme Court Decision | -speech in a public forum enjoys the highest protection. To censor such speech, government must have an extremely important reason (compelling interest). -must be able to show that there is no other way to protect this compelling interesting. Called “strict scrutiny test” -Spectrum was determined to be part of the school curriculum. -Spectrum was not a public forum. It was instead a “supervised learning experience” for journalism students.

19: Good Public Policy: | 1.School officials are better able to decide what speech is appropriate in their community than are the federal courts. Once a principal determines that something is not appropriate, the federal courts should not be called upon to decide if that judgment is correct. 2.Learning takes place through expressive activities like school publications and plays. Through participating in the publication of spectrum students learn many aspects of journalism. 3.People might mistakenly believe that student expression represents the school officials point of view 4.School authorities should have the power to protect young people from information they deem inappropriate.

20: Conclusion | The decision placed control of all matters related to curriculum as well as any school-sponsored speech in the hands of school administrators and school boards. -some places have increased review of the paper before it is published. -the ruling applies to all forms of student expression that occurs as part of a school curriculum

21: Aftermath | -Requests for assistance received by the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) from high school students and advisers around the country indicated that there was a dramatic increase in the amount of censorship. -Student publications are reporting censorship of articles, editorials, and advertisements that were perceived as "controversial" or that might cast the school in a negative light. And almost all student journalists and advisers said that they attributed the censorship at least in part to the "Hazelwood" decision.

22: Citations | Censorship. N.d. bing.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2012.

23: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. N.d. google.com. Web. 24 May 2012. < http://www.bing.com/images/ Hazelwood East High School. N.d. bing.com. Web. 24 May 2012.

Sizes: mini|medium|large|behemoth
Default User
  • By: Blair B.
  • Joined: almost 5 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 1
  • Default User
    • By: Jordyn S.
    • Contributions: 9 photos , 13 pages

About This Mixbook

  • Title: Government Mixbook Case Project
  • Tags: None
  • Published: over 4 years ago

Get up to 50% off
Your first order

Get up to 50% off
Your first order