Blog #7 111507

The First Amendment has, is, and always will be under the utmost of scrutiny. However the majority of the time, this scrutiny is made in passing of for a specific cause that affects a limited amount of individuals. So what, then, is the current state if the First Amendment on a broader scale?

The First Amendment center [#1] looks to shed some light on exactly that with their yearly State of the First Amendment Survey [#2-3]. Not only does this report show America’s knowledge of the First Amendment, but also reveals their opinions on it and how it contributes to our present way of life. The 2007 survey results can also be compared to those of previous years, exposing trends in the aforementioned opinions. Here, I will investigate some of the main results of the survey and discuss their implications.

Right off the bat, even the average onlooker notices that the respondents’ actual knowledge of what liberties the First Amendment guarantees is very much limited. Obviously, freedom of speech is the right most associated with the First Amendment, and the survey results show this. Sixty four percent of the respondents could name freedom of speech as one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Sixty six percent responded that free speech is essential to have. This trend was also consistent with previous years’ results. However, from there the results tapered off dramatically, with less than 20 percent of the respondents possessing the ability to name any of the other four freedoms. And in the decade that the First Amendment Center has been conducting the assessment, the right to petition has never been identified by more than three percent of respondents. This tells me that society tends to concentrate their First Amendment attitudes on what constitutes free expression in today’s media and entertainment spectrum instead of comprehending it on the intended broader scale. That is to say, the average American would be more concerned with whether the speech of a celebrity is provoking than some of their “lesser known” rights under the First Amendment (i.e. freedom of press, petition, assembly, and religion). I personally believe that every American should have a knowledge of these freedoms and how they work in everyday situations.

Speaking of the media, some journalistic aspects were also addressed in the survey. The results, however, were scattered to say the least. Three quarters of the respondents agreed that journalists should be able to keep their sources private, and 60 percent stated that the media (newspapers in particular) should have the right to criticize the U.S. military. On the flip side, statistics showed that the majority thinks that most news is either biased, made up, or false altogether. So the public seems to (still) have a disdain for journalists. Unless, that is, they are reporting on a topic favorable to the receiver of one that corroborates their viewpoint (i.e. the U.S. military). Thank goodness for organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists [#4] that provide resources for members of the press who are under fire because of their work.

And as if almost on cue to my previous blog [#5], First Amendment issues in school settings are covered. In regards to expression, 74 percent of respondents believe that students’ expression ought to be limited. This goes in accordance with the strong trend that surfaced in previous surveys, in which at least 67 percent of respondents each year thought student expression ought to be limited. This leads me to believe that those surveyed were primarily adults who would be wary of giving students that type of “power.” In regards to student journalism, it appears that level plays a factor. The majority declared that students at the high school level and below should not be able to report on controversial issues in student publications without the approval of authorities. At the college level, however, the majority (61 percent) approved of this scenario. As I asserted in my previous blog, I believe high school students should have to gain staff approval before reporting on controversial issues. This saves both the students and the school from potential backlash and upheaval while still protecting the creative rights of the students at the same time. At the college level, this obviously can be reduced due to maturity of the students and their desire to maintain professionalism.

I could continue to extrapolate this study to obtain a better picture of how we, as American, view the First Amendment, but I encourage you to examine the survey yourself and draw your own conclusions. The basic summary, though, is that Americans highly value such freedoms as religion even though they may not have an intricate understanding of how they actually “work.” That is, they may not be able to call on certain court cases to discriminate which aspects of speech are protected and which are not. In response to the attitude of the group about the press, free press expert with the First Amendment Center Paul McMasters says that “these responses are far too chilling for a healthy democracy.” I, on the other hand, believe the current state of the First Amendment is strong. We will always have a wide difference of opinions, as seen on this survey. But it is those differing opinions that strengthen the marketplace of ideas. And moreover, I believe that if more people receive an education on both the historical and modern day motivations and applications of the First Amendment (such as this very class), they will not only appreciate it more but also be more “in tune” to what the Framers intended for the First Amendment to encompass.


#1: www.firstamendmentcenter.org
#2: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031
#3: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/SOFA2007results.pdf
#4: www.spj.org
#5: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/11/blog-6-110807.html

Blog #6 110807

First Hazelwood.

Then Kell.

Now this.

Yes, it appears we have yet another case of student journalism gone awry. On October 26th, Principal Mark Hanson censored the student newspaper at City High School in Iowa City, Iowa, over an article that investigated racial attitudes*. Needless to say, this created quite an uproar amongst the community; and in particular the students who were responsible for the article [#1].

As much as I support the First Amendment in regards to student journalism, I’d like to look those students right in the eye and ask, “Didn’t you see this coming?!” Both historical and current evidence justifies what Hanson did. Here, I will outline that evidence and then propose a simple solution so that this seemingly endless cycle of censorship and controversy in student journalism will die a quick and painless death (figuratively, that is).

The golden standard of cases involving circumstances similar to this one is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) [#2]. There, Principal Robert E. Reynolds censored two articles, one concerning teen pregnancy and the other divorce, from the school sponsored newspaper. The students involved with the articles claimed their free speech was violated but were defeated in the Supreme Court. Since the school funds the publication, they possess the authority to limit the speech in it if it appears that the institution is promoting activities that portray the school in a negative fashion in the community (as was the case here) or are illegal for high school-aged students.

The City High School situation falls under this umbrella. If the article were to remain uncensored, it could (and in my opinion, would) seem that the school is promoting certain negative racial attitudes and stereotypes. There had already been verbal confrontations between students over the article. From there, it would be a slippery slope to more racial tension, community upheaval, and possibly even violence.

But as always in my blogs, I appeal to the dissenters. So if you don’t think that Hazelwood bear enough resemblance to the City High School situation, don’t fret. Iowa state law has it covered. It decrees that “the publication of a school newspaper can't be stopped unless it contains information that is obscene, libelous, slanderous, or encourages students to break the law, violate school regulations or cause the disruption of the operation of the school.” According to Hanson, the article contained a threat to violence which, if came to fruition, would significantly disrupt the educational process. One could even argue that the verbal arguments that were already taking place were enough disruption to validate Hanson’s actions. And since race is a hot button issue no matter where you are or who is involved, I think the censorship of one article greatly outweighs the possible consequences (i.e. fights among students or the cancellation of the newspaper altogether).
At the beginning of this blog, I alluded to another student journalism debacle…that of Kell High School in Atlanta, Georgia [#3]. This is one of the many cases on this matter that fell through the constitutional cracks. An student article on homosexuality as a “reproductive error” was not repressed by neither the high school’s principal nor the school board. While the students no doubt looked at this as a victory, I see it as a major lapse in accountability on the administration’s part. The fact that neither Jay Dillon (a school board representative) nor Trudie Donovan (the principal) attempted to hold back the article shows that either (a) they are not up to date on their knowledge of the First Amendment as it pertains to a high school setting or (b) they did not want to spark any more controversy that the article itself had already created.

The solution I pose to this conundrum a simple one. In fact, it is one we already have in use here at the University of Illinois. A faculty member oversees the production of the periodical, namely checking to ensure the content is reputable. If there is an issue, the staff works and compromises with the overseer to make certain that the subject matter is not in violation of any statutes or could possibly rile up tension in the given setting. This plan still protects the First Amendment rights and creative freedoms of the journalists.

One should note that the words “in the given setting” are highly significant. One of the pillars of the First Amendment is that individuals have the freedom to express themselves in controversial ways that question the issues. However, as we’ve seen in the plethora of student journalism cases, the implication of this pillar in a middle or high school setting can bring about disastrous results. Legitimate school newspapers can turn into gossip columns and slander-filled snot rags. And in this blogger’s opinion, if the present media is so diluted and the future of journalism has come to this, we have a very bleak future to look forward to.




* The article itself was an explanation of a survey about race that had been previously published in the newspaper. The survey results indicated that that 2% of the students surveyed had an unfavorable view toward white students and 13% had an unfavorable view toward black students.
#1: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19238
#2: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Hazelwood
#3: http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html