Students Myspace causes Suspension

The social networking site MySpace gave birth to much more than a social phenomenon; it gave birth to many court cases as well. One of the most recent cases involves a Pennsylvania student who created a MySpace profile mocking his principle. In an era of fake MySpaces and constant satirical comedies, this MySpace was taken much more seriously than it should have been.
The student's principal suspended the student, claiming that the school still has power during out of school activities. The student's MySpace was compared to a student selling drugs off-campus or egging another student's house. As Judge Theordore McKee said "Here we've got the First Amendment involved. The egg-throwing, drug-selling cases seem very far afield of what we have here." Essentially, comparing drug selling to the MySpace is like comparing apples to oranges. While the MySpace may have been hurtful, simply asking the student to remove it would have gotten the point across.


-Tamar Shachaf
about you editor

Preservation of the First Amendment

Emily Baugh
Calendar Editor

On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at President Bush at a press conference.

With reason, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, was extremely embarrassed and asked all of the news networks that were at the conference to hand over their tapes of the event. Talabani didn’t want anyone to think badly of the Iraqi people.

However, the U.S. government decided that they would let their news networks keep the tapes they had. A smart move really, if the government had confiscated the tapes, it would have been a violation of the First Amendment.

If the news networks had had their tapes confiscated, hopefully people would have protested. Hopefully people would have been angry. Hopefully people would be afraid for their Constitutional rights.

But in the United States today, only a handful of people still hold their Constitutional rights near and dear to them. Many people would be only too willing to give up their rights for a little “security”.

That would give our government and our leaders too much power, making them pretty much a dictator or tyrant. Our founding fathers didn’t want that to happen, that’s why they created the Constitution and broke away from England.

So the next time you feel like your Constitutional rights are being violated, take a stand and protect your rights.

unfair suspension denies first amendment rights

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

In November 2007, a student at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Pembroke Pines, Florida named Katherine Evans was suspended for three days for posting negative comments about her teacher on Facebook. She wrote these comments and then tried to get other students to agree with her. Not only was Evans suspended, but she was also removed from her AP classes.

The school said that Evans was suspended “on the grounds of violating Broward County school board policies against bullying / cyber bullying / harassment towards a staff member and Disruptive behavior, according to a copy of her Notice of Suspension attached to the complaint.” However it doesn’t make much sense that posting negative thoughts about a teacher can now be considered bullying or harassment. In no way do these comments physically hurt the teacher, nor intimidate the teacher who clearly has more power than the student.

This suspension is a clear violation of the rights to freedom of speech. Considering the fact that negative comments can be said about the president of the United States, it seems a little ridiculous that comments that could be found offensive to a teacher couldn’t be made in the exact same way; especially considering that this was on the student’s personal blogging site and not posted during the school day.

If students can now be suspended from school for stating their personal beliefs, then this world has clearly stopped giving people the rights that they are guaranteed by the first amendment. And what is just as bad, is the fact that a student can be removed from AP classes for stating these beliefs. Evans has every right to sue the school system, and should not be denied her crucial rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines déjà vu?

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

The Watson Chapel School District, based in Arkansas, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking it to decide the constitutionality of punishing students for wearing protest armbands.

In September, students Chris Lowry, Colton Dougan and Michael Joseph wore black armbands in protest of the Watson Chapel School District’s dress code policy. However, their school district suspended them for doing so. The students, as well as their parents, filed a suit, saying that the school district violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of these students.

However, in the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the Watson Chapel School District claims that the 8th Circuit improperly applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District while making their decision. In the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Tinker, the Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court also said that these students were allowed to freely express themselves unless their actions caused a “material and substantial disruption” of “normal school operations or an invasion of rights of other students.”

The writ states that “the prioritization of emphasis by the school district on one activity versus another is just the type of discretionary function of local schools that courts should not interfere with. As this Court has noted, the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in the school assembly is appropriate and properly rests with the school rather than the federal courts.”

Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District is an unacceptable echo of the past. It is a shame that a landmark case, such as Tinker, is essentially being repeated nearly 40 years later. The issues of Tinker should not have to be challenged and dealt with yet again, and the students of the Watson Chapel School District should not be forced to go to the Supreme Court in order to have their rights to free speech be honored.

First Amendment does not justify hate and prejudice

by Zhaleh Breen
About You Editor

A couple of months ago, two students in Neuqua Valley High School wore shirts that said "Be Happy, Not Gay," on the National Day of Silence. The principle ordered them to change their shirts, because they were hurtful and offensive. The students then sued the school, citing violations of their first amendment rights.
Using the First Amendment as an excuse to peddle hate and intolerance makes a total mockery of it. Even though these students were allowed to legally wear the shirts, they should not have because it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people.
Had these two worn shirts that said something derogatory about any other group of people, such as Latinos or Muslims, than there would be no question of not allowing them to wear the shirts. It's pretty sad and pathetic that some people seem to think its alright to discriminate against homosexuals. This case should not go in their favor. What they did violates the Tinker standard, which states that students are allowed the right to free speech in schools, so long as it does not cause a disruption. Peddling hate and prejudice is a very big disruption, and should not be allowed.

California Institutes New Law for Journalism Advisors

The California legislature and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill protecting journalism teachers from angry school administrators who want to punish the teachers for things that their students said.
This is a good step for teachers in California, now they can’t be fired for not censoring their students when there is nothing to censor. The administration can no longer intimidate students by holding their advisors’ jobs over their heads.
Students now are too afraid to publish articles that aren’t so controversial because they don’t want to get in trouble or get their advisors in trouble.
Only two other states have placed this law into effect, Kansas and Colorado. Even if other states have laws protecting their advisors’, none have such extensive laws like the said three states.
The rest of the 47 states should take a clue from these three states and start applying better laws into their legislature for high school advisors and high school students as well.

Emily Baugh
Announcements Editor

Many People Oppose IDS Article on Anti-Semitism

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

On October 27, 2008, The Indiana Daily Student printed an editorial called “Praise for Anti-Zionism” by columnist Yahya Chaudhry that was seen as anti-Semitic. The article voiced Chaudhry’s opinion that Israel is a racist country and the United States would benefit from denouncing Israel. At the end of the column, he went on to make slurs against Jewish people and Jewish politicians.

Many people thought that because the article was anti-Semitic, it should not have been published in the IDS because a student newspaper should not be spreading the ideas of racism and bigotry. Some people also thought that the faculty advisor to the students should have used this as an opportunity to teach the students how to prevent racism, and not to be spread through the newspaper.

While it is sad that someone would write such an anti-Semitic editorial, the IDS still should have published it because of the rights of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. No person in this country should have to forfeit his or her first amendment rights no matter what. A better response to this article would be for people to respond by disagreeing with the article and stating why it was wrong. It is also an opportunity for teachable moments about the dangers of anti-Semitism and bigotry.

The IDS responded very appropriately with an editors note stating that the point of the article was not to promote anti-Semitism but rather to spark debate among readers. While many people may not agree with this article, the IDS still has every right to publish it. No person should be denied the right to have his or her opinion published just because others do not agree with his or her view. Argument and debate what make a newspaper interesting and keep readers’ attention. No paper should be denied this right including the IDS.

Congratulations Principal Jeffrey Henderson

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor

When students were told at the Franklin College State Journalism Convention that two administrators had won Administrator of the Year, Bloomington North publication students whispered to each other wondering how to get their principal, Jeffrey Henderson, to be the winner next year.

However, the staff members were happily surprised upon returning to school to find out that Henderson did in fact win Administer of the Year.

We would like to congratulate our principal for his wonderful attitude toward our school's publications. He allows us to print what we want and allows a voice. He is a full supporter of our First Amendment Rights. He is behind our paper, our magazine and our yearbook 200%, and will never let anyone talk badly about us, or say that we did not have the right to print what we did.

We love our principal and we know that he deserves this high honor. Congratulations, Mr. Henderson!! =)

Student newspaper unjustly banned from career fair

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Missouri Southern State University’s school newspaper, the Chart, was banned from participating in a career fair in Joplin, Missouri on Oct. 8. This occurrence directly violates the First Amendment rights of the paper’s staff and is a prime example of why those rights should be protected and fought for.

Student enrollment director Derek Skaggs initiated the ban, claiming that the paper could not participate in the fair because of a recently published story which he felt portrayed the University in a “negative light.” However, the story the Chart published was merely about declining enrollment. Skaggs asserted that the article was “inappropriate for a recruiting event,” and therefore the paper would be banned from participating in the fair.

The career fair was an annual, on-campus event which invites prospective high school students to attain information about local colleges and universities. Editor-in-Chief of the Chart, Alexandra Nicolas, said that Rhonda Clark, the student magazine adviser, “showed up carrying the newspapers” and “told (Nicolas) not to put the papers out because the content was inappropriate.” However, neither Nicolas nor the staff could seem to figure out why it was deemed inappropriate and needed to be banned. The only explanation was that the fair’s objective is to recruit students, and not “scare them away” by exposing them to a story informing them about declining enrollment.

Despite this, Nicolas said that she didn’t think MSSU was intentionally trying to censor the Chart, and instead made a mistake. Nicolas then contacted the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) and the Missouri Press Association for assistance. The story then gained media attention after the Chart published an online editorial about the situation shortly after the incident. The situation is currently under investigation, headed by Vice President of Academic Affairs, John Messick.

Although the investigation’s purpose is to determine whether the staff’s First Amendment rights were violated, it is clear that they definitely were. Adam Goldstein, SPLC's legal advocate, said, “You can't avoid liability for censorship by showing how much speech you don't censor.” Those who are able to freely publish without censorship should be grateful for their First Amendment rights and continue to fight to uphold those of others.

Social Networking profiles, should they be banned

Tamar Shachaf
About you Editor, Fused

While students at Bloomington High School North have been angered by the fact that social networking sites are blocked on school computers, volleyball players at a Texas high school faced a bigger issue. At a parent orientation meeting, the volleyball coach announced to the players and their parents that the players were not allowed to have profiles on social networking sites such as myspace and facebook. Angered by the fact, parents told the media and the school immediately took action. A letter was sent to parents explaining the situation, and the policy was removed. While the reasoning for the policy made sense, the policy itself was a violation of rights.
The reasoning was that students often post pictures of themselves doing things that make me considered inappropriate. While I understand that it is important to maintain a good team image, it is also important to let students exercise their rights and freedoms. If students choose to post bad pictures and comments they do KNOW the consequences that may arise and they know the risk they are taking. Instead of banning social networking profiles, the coach should simply have a talk with the players about what is appropriate and what is not. Social networking sites are just as much a way of expression as writing or music and should not be banned or limited.

Voting Amplifies Voice

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor, Fused

As students come of age, they are opened up to a whole new world of opportunities, including being able to vote. In a Democracy, the citizens pick the government an being able to have your own voice when it comes to the election is one of America's many given freedoms. With their vote, voters are able to participate in the civic process. However, if able people don’t register and thereby don’t vote, they’re throwing away their voices, and thus have no right to complain about anything going on within their government.

One of my dearest friends has just recently informed me that she didn’t register to vote, even though she turned 18 in June. I couldn’t help but scold her a bit. I told her that when she votes, whether the outcome of the election is what she voted for or not, she is becoming involved. With her vote, she can say that at least she tried to get the results to turn out a different way.

Jessica Alba is this year’s advocate of young adults registering and going to the polls with her different Declare Yourself videos. In a skit with Hayden Panettiere from Heroes, Alba was a shopping network hostess selling various muzzles. According to the ladies, by not voting, citizens are silencing themselves to the point where it’s almost as if they’re wearing muzzles.

Young adults need to become involved in the election process. It’s what runs a democracy. By becoming knowledged on the candidates’ stances, voters can come to their own conclusions. And if the results end up being the opposite of what they wanted, at least they can say, “Well I didn’t vote for him.”

Has Freedom of the Press gone too far?

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

Freedom of the Press is one of the most important First Amendment rights that is guaranteed by the constitution. However, is it possible that the media has taken this right too far? Is the job of the media to create news or just to report it? While the media has a right to report the news, their job is not to shape public opinion based on their personal views.

With the creation of 24 hour news networks, media is now sharing their personal views within the mix. For example Fox News is now known as the more conservative or perhaps more republican news channel, and in watching their coverage of news, this bias is obvious. On the other hand, MSNBC is widely known as one of the more liberal news networks. These are views that the public should not know about just by watching the coverage of the news.

While the press should never be censored, there is a certain inherent responsibility that comes with being a member of the media. With every right there comes responsibility, and this is certainly true in the case of the media. It is not right for the media to be convincing people to change their views based on the biases of those covering the news.

The responsibilities that go with Freedom of the Press need to be taken very seriously by all journalists. News networks need to make sure that by reporting the news they are sticking only to reporting the news and not going off on tangents about personal beliefs. If 24 hours of news is too long for networks to be able to report news without sharing biases, then news time should be shortened. Everything that’s reported in the news should be simply for the public to stay informed and that purpose only.

Censorship of anti-abortion material in public school

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

Michael, a 14-year-old student, distributed anti-abortion leaflets at his middle school on Oct. 24, 2006 in honor of the “Third Annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.” Followers of the protest also wore sweatshirts that said, “Pray to End Abortion,” as well as a piece of red duct tape over their mouths and wrists to symbolize how “they speak for unborn children.”

In an opinion released on Oct. 7, 2008, a three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that “hallways in public middle schools are not public forums, so school officials have wide discretion over regulating student speech in the hallways.” Judge John M. Rogers cited Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier as the court’s reasoning, alluding to the decision that high school administrators can censor numerous school-sponsored student publications if they can prove they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so.

During Michael’s first class, his teacher asked him to go to the office because he was “causing a disruption.” He was then sent to the guidance counselor, who made him turn his sweatshirt inside-out. According to the guidance counselor, his message was too “political,” and the school “could speak about abstinence, but not about abortion, and that the school had to remain neutral and people couldn’t take sides.”

However, later that day, Michael turned his sweatshirt right side-out again. The principal also denied Michael’s request to distribute the anti-abortion leaflets, on the premises that he did not have a chance to approve the leaflets’ content in a timely manner, as stated in the school’s policies.

Even though the U.S. district court ruled in favor of Michael, the Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling, saying that the First Amendment did not protect Michael’s rights. It argued that under Tinker v. Des Moines, “student expression is constitutionally protected unless it is unlawful (libelous, obscene, constitutes an invasion of privacy, etc.) or it seriously and physically disrupts normal school activities.” It also argued that the school was not trying to infringe upon the student’s right to freedom of speech, but to prevent hallway clutter and congestion.

Despite the school’s best interests of staying neutral on controversial matters and preventing hallway traffic, they, as well as the Sixth Circuit, went a little too far with infringing upon the student’s rights. While asking the student to remove duct tape from his mouth, as it interferes with his ability to participate in class, is understandable, asking him to remove or turn his sweatshirt inside-out is not. Since the student attended a public school and was not directly causing a disruption, his freedom of speech and expression should have been protected under the First Amendment.

Political opinions aren't exceptions to our rights

Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor, Fused

Every day, as the election creeps ever closer, millions of people discuss their political opinions with friends, family and sometimes even complete strangers. Some people do this to have their opinion heard, some just want those around them to know where they stand. Some, however, don’t say anything.

Those people who choose to keep quiet may be doing it because they feel like it’s no one else’s business who they’re going to vote for. My mother is like this. She says that there is an intimate conversation between her and the voting ballot, and that’s it. However, many people, including some at Bloomington North, don’t want to speak their minds, fearing they might be chastised for having the “wrong opinion.”

The First Amendment, which clearly states “freedom of speech” allows those in America to state their opinions, grievances and feelings without fear of being reprimanded. That’s why America is so unique, and that’s what makes us free. However, a person has lost their sense of freedom when they’re afraid to bring up their political views.

Discussions and debates need to be had, but just because one person’s belief is this and another’s is that doesn’t mean that one stands above all others. All people have a right to their opinion and should be able to speak it, whether those around them disagree or not.

Student punished for wearing American flag T-shirt

Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused

On Sept. 16, 2008, a student at Dos Palos High School in California was punished for wearing a tie-dye T-shirt with an American flag on it. The shirt was worn for hippie dress-up day during the school’s homecoming week.

The school’s new vice principal saw the student and thought the shirt violated the school’s updated dress code. She then asked the student to remove his shirt and put on another one that said, “DVC: Dress Code Violator.” However, the dress code policy only states that the school district prohibits “shirts/blouses that promote specific races, cultures or ethnicities.”

The school principal then had a meeting with the vice principal, in which they reviewed the dress code. Then they had a meeting with the student and apologized for the mistake and “misinterpretation” of the dress code policy’s intent. However, the following day, students protested by wearing all red, white or blue T-shirts. The local media was also present to document the footage.

This occurrence clearly demonstrates a violation of every citizen’s First Amendment rights. Under the First Amendment, the freedoms of speech and expression are guaranteed, among others. However, the California student’s rights were violated when his school tried to censor his shirt and therefore his freedom of speech and expression.

A member of the local American Legion also said, “It is hard for me to believe that a person in power might not know the laws and freedoms afforded to all citizens.” This quote clearly demonstrates how severely harmful it can be for those in power to deprive others their rights. Any person deprived of their rights can be subject to suffer various consequences, ranging from slight to severe. It is important that citizens know their rights and stand up for them, such as the students who protested the censoring of the T-shirt did.

Homemade T-shirt causes Controversy

By Emily Baugh
Announcements Editor
“Obama is a Terrorist’s Best Friend” was the slogan written across Daxx Dalton’s homemade t-shirt when he walked into his fifth grade class at Aurora Frontier K-8 School in Aurora, Colorado. Needless to say, something went down at the school; Dalton was suspended.
Dalton says he was suspended for wearing the shirt and is now promptly crying out that his First Amendment rights were violated. But should he really be yelling foul? So many people in today’s society say, do or wear something controversial and as soon as they get in trouble they say their First Amendment rights were violated.
The First Amendment shouldn’t be a way to get out of trouble or to do something that they want to do just because they know they won’t get in trouble, just like Dalton. Dalton is now pressing charges against the school.
In reality, Dalton was suspended because he was causing a disturbance. The school administrators thought that the shirt was inappropriate and gave the boy three options: change into something else, turn the shirt inside out, or be suspended. Dalton chose to be suspended. The administrators say that the boy was suspended because he was causing a disturbance and was being willfully disobedient and defiant. So really, who is in the right here, the school that was trying to do its job, or a kid who is screaming that his First Amendment rights were violated?

Patriot Act still very problematic

Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US constitution guarantees citizens the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Patriot Act is violating this right and still causing many problems in the U.S. today.

The Patriot Act created a new category called domestic terrorism which gave the government far reaching powers to stop domestic terrorism. Through this act, the government is allowed to detain people without giving them the right to a proper trial. If the government even claims that someone is a terrorist, they can immediately put them in jail without any proof.

After September 11, people were so terrified of terrorism that they were willing to compromise their basic liberties even if it could lead them to detention or being accused of being terrorists. Now, people even need to be careful about what they say in public because it could lead to persecution. It is ridiculous that any person should have to live in fear or feel that they need to compromise their freedom of speech. It is more important to protect our individual freedom than to randomly decide that a person might be a terrorist.

The Patriot Act is slowly taking away individual freedoms. If the government is able to capitalize on people's fears like they did with the Patriot Act, then it will only be a first step to the many freedoms that a citizen can lose in the future.

The Patriot Act has already been challenged by the ACLU and it needs to be revoked because of the flaws associated with it. More than 400 communities across the United States are trying to reform the Patriot Act. However, it needs to be done much more quickly. If the Patriot Act doesn't get changed immediately, then our liberties will be slowly chipped away, one after the next.

Students Suspended in Nebraska

Last June, a high school student by the name of Julius Robinson was shot and killed. Authorities believe it was gang-related, and therefore when a group of students wore shirts to commemorate him, they were suspended.
The school called the police station to see if "RIP Julius" could be interpreted as a gang sign, and then decided to call the students into the office. I find this completely, and utterly absurd. Even if a student was a horrible criminal, he still deserves to be respected upon death. Had students worn "RIP Heath Ledger" shirts after Ledger's death, it is most likely they would have not been suspended.
The article of splc.org states that authorities were not even sure if Robinson was a gang member, however the suspicion was enough to suspend a few of his friends who had no other intention but to remember their lost friend. I find this a horrible violation of first amendment rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines it was established that students do not leave their rights outside when they enter school. The students were simply showing their view on the death of a friend, and they had the right to do so.

Free Speech MIA in Sports

Most avid sports fans have at one point or another heard about a player being fined an absurd amount of money, usually for something as silly as criticizing an official. Understandably, the leagues have to keep a firm hand on the athletes to ensure their images aren't tarnished. But when do these regulations cross the line? To what extent should the leagues even be allowed to impose fines on players who have the audacity to speak their mind? Now I know they make millions and millions of dollars, and a $45,000 fine is pocket change, but this is an issue of principle.

This wouldn't be as large of an issue if the restrictions stopped with the players. Well, in the America of today, it was inevitable that the fans would get theirs sooner or later. Recently, a Papa John's in Ohio had shirts for sale that insulted LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers' superstar. They called him a "cry baby", referring to his comments after a particularly rough playoff game against the Washington Wizards. Instead of being accepted as a humorous side-effect of a heated rivalry, it was widely criticized by the media, and condemned as being petty. No punishment was handed out, but they felt the wrath of the nation and were in essence forced to make amends. They did so by giving out twenty-three cent pizzas last week to people in Ohio in honor of LeBron's number. The cost of this stunt would have to be immense, and all because one fan decided to have some fun with his freedom of speech.

There was a similar situation that we in Indiana can remember fondly. A shirt being worn by a fan at Assembly Hall during the Men's basketball season reading "Bring Back Bobby" came under fire from the university. They tried to make the man remove his shirt, and each time he complied, but later on simply put the shirt back on. But what makes IU think that it has the right to censor the shirt? What possible justification could they have for blocking this man's freedom of speech when it is so harmless and moot in the grand scheme of things? Anything that is considered controversial today is stifled whenever possible in today's world, because corporations and businesses only care about one thing: their own image to the world.

These sorts of incidents may not seem like things worthy of attention, but I think they are. We live in a time when censorship has a strangle hold on every form of media, and everything we see and hear first travels through a filter. Sure, we are allowed to express ourselves as fans, but do we truly have the liberties we think we do? Will sports teams impose so many rules that the games lose their fun and majesty? It's up to us to keep pushing the boundaries, and ensuring that the heated rivalries that make sports great for fans are kept intact. The balls in your court now.

Photojournalists are Reporters Too

Justina Grant
Photo Editor, the North Star



In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” Most journalists are familiar with this freedom, considering how they are the press, and they freely write stories and columns to exercise this freedom. However, journalism doesn’t stop at stories and opinion pieces. Another element of the press that some people may overlook is photojournalists, or photographers. How many people look at a newspaper or magazine that doesn’t include photos? Are there even any newspapers or magazines in existence that don’t have photos? Not that I’m aware of. What draws readers’ attention to a particular publication isn’t usually the small black text organized neatly into columns, but photographs of the subject matter. Photojournalism is journalism, and photojournalists are the press.
Restricting photojournalists from taking or exposing harmless photos that are taken in public places is the exact same thing as censoring a journalist from writing a story in a publication. It is both illegal and unconstitutional. Last summer, a photographer in downtown Silver Springs, Md., was reported to the management office by a security guard who said that there was no picture taking allowed in downtown Silver Spring. According to the story on NowPublic.com, the man said to the security guard “I am on a city street, in a public place -- taking pictures is a right that I have protected by the first amendment.”
The photographer was right. Although the property was said to be privately owned by the Peterson Company, it was still bought using some public money and was actually leased to the Peterson Company by Montgomery County. Technically, the area was public, and angered photographers gathered at the spot later on to protest the injustice.
Even photos of a high school sporting event, there have still been cases of people in charge of the event telling the photographers that they could not publish the photographs that were taken. Americans must be more aware of the First Amendment and the rights that it instates. Freedom of the press involves both reporters and photojournalists, so neither can be legally censored.

Understanding the First Amendment

Free speech holds a great amount of value in the United States today, especially with all sorts of new technology, like computers and cell phones, but free speech is just one little part of the whole First Amendment.

Many people in the United States think that the First Amendment only contains the right to free speech, but it also includes the right to assemble peacefully, to practice a religion without persecution, and the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".

Americans are always on the lookout for wrongs committed against freedom of speech, whether it be from a high school paper that was wrongly censored, to someone who has had their right to free speech taken away from them for no legitimate reason. But Americans need to realize that the other parts of the First Amendment are just as important.

The other rights in the First Amendment have just as much weight behind them as the right to free speech with significant backgrounds in history. The pilgrims and others like them left Europe because they were being persecuted for their religion, so they came to America, where they could practice their religion in peace. The Declaration of Independence is a petition to the English government for the wrongs committed against the American people.

The Founding Fathers understood the four rights contained in the First Amendment all had a certain importance to the Bill of Rights when they were writing it, so they chose those rights, not just freedom of speech, to comprise the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights for the citizens of the United States of America.

- Emily Baugh

Fighting for Freedom of Speech 2400 Years Ago

While many people today take freedom of speech for granted, many people throughout history didn’t even know what this freedom was. In the past, few sought to tell their opinions and speak their minds in opposition to authorities. The few who did rise and say what they had to say would have had to be very brave characters.

In 339 BC, Socrates, considered today one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, was put to trial by the Athenians for his social and moral criticism of the city. He was sentenced to death. Before his death, he challenged the government in a great speech, claiming that he was right and they were wrong. He never backed down, accusing his prosecutors and pointing out their faults. Socrates considered himself a teacher of morals to the people and spoke his mind even though he knew his words might lead to his death.

Socrates compared himself to a fly bothering a horse, the horse being the state. He was constantly criticizing, judging and urging the state to take moral and correct actions.

During his trial, Socrates said: “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy, to exhort you…” (Plato, Apology. 30E). Though he knew this would anger the people, he told them he would keep criticizing them and teaching them as long as he could; he would continue being the fly bothering the horse. Socrates’ words and actions, which angered and contradicted the state, eventually cost him his life.

Americans today, as possessors of the great liberty of free speech, the freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want, should remember Socrates and his persistency. Socrates stood up to authorities in a time when speech was not a freedom.

-Naama Levy

In a little less than a month, Indiana will hold its first meaningful primary in forty years. With 84 democratic delegates up for grabs, and only 143 delegates separating Barack Obama from Hilary Clinton, there’s a lot at stake in this primary.

For many people our age, this will be the first time they get to make a difference in the political process. For eighteen years, voting has been distant and far-off. But now many high school students are forced to actually contemplate who they think will do a better job of leading America.

When the stakes are so high, it is absolutely necessary that they take voting seriously. Being allowed to effect change in one’s own government is a right which should not be taken lightly. It is an incredibly important part of freedom of expression, and with this right comes the responsibility to sincerely weigh the options available to them.

This is the closest nomination contest in years. No matter which candidate comes out on top, there will be a large-scale change in the new administration from the past one. It is in the voters hands to make that change. As new voters, high school students might not yet be aware of the power they wield. They should realize that voting is an important right which is an integral part of their freedom of expression.

-Stan deRuijter
Staff Writer

Freedom of speech is not excuse for slander

Juicycampus.com has recently been a frequent news story. It is a gossip site, whose slogan states “Always anonymous…Always juicy…”

Juicy campus is full of anonymous sources posting on sexually explicit subjects as well as fellow students. The problem with the anonymousness of the site is that it only applies to the poster, not the person being talked about. The site, which includes an Indiana University chapter, is full of names of university members.

While the site is infamous for accusing innocent and naïve students of being “the biggest sluts on campus” there is plenty more gossiping going on. The site also accuses professors of sleeping with students and having STDs, which is an accusation that could very negative affect that professor’s career.

What’s the site’s excuse for all this “anonymous” posting? The first amendment of course. A California court agreed, backing up forums everywhere.

However, that ruling only protects California, leaving the rest of the world to fight for their rights. The first amendment was put in place to protect the public, not as an excuse to publicly humiliate peers and post slander.

So far, there have been a few arrests through Juicy Campus. Posts about school shootings are taken very seriously, and a few posters have been arrested. This is a very small number of users and has yet to discourage students from using the site.

Fighting against websites like Juicy Campus is protecting the first amendment’s reputation, because like the law also states everyone has the right to a good reputation.

- Kali Skiles
reviews editor

Recently, in a Burke County school in Morganton, North Carolina, Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner came under fire, for being “inappropriate” reading material for high school students. In one scene of the book, a young boy is brutally attacked and raped. Because of this scene, some parents now want the book removed from the tenth-grade reading list.

Although these parents mean well, they are hardly doing their children any service. By deciding that a book such as The Kite Runner unsuitable, these parents are insulting the intelligence and maturity levels of their children. They are high school students; they will soon be adults, and they are old enough to handle the subjects discussed in The Kite Runner. Some scenes in the book are somewhat hard to stomach, but that hardly constitutes it being banned.

The novel has important themes and morals, which students can learn a lot from. Attempting to censor it does much more damage than good. By doing so, these parents will only increase interest in the book, and will make the students who haven’t been assigned to read the book interested as well. Soon the decision will be made by the school board about whether or not the novel will be removed from the reading list. If the members of the school board have any sense of what is right, they will throw out this case and keep The Kite Runner on the required reading list.

-Zhaleh Breen

Aliya Mood
Profiles Editor, the North Star

The Hazelwood Case defines high school journalism and students’ rights to freedom of speech. Last week while I was in my SAT prep class I came across a reading selection that discussed the infamous Hazelwood Case, and it sparked my mind. According to the case, students’ First Amendment rights stop as they enter the “schoolhouse gate.”

But how is this fair?

Throughout our journey through high school we are taught to express our feelings in class discussions and debates. But as soon as someone shares a belief that is unconventional or offensive, the student is punished with suspension, expulsion, etc.

High school is supposed to prepare us for college, the world beyond our parent’s houses and rows of lockers. But by this decision, how are students supposed to learn about and defend their right to freedom of speech?

In fact many students either don’t know what the First Amendment entails or they take it for granted. In a report done by MSNBC, it revealed that three out of four students took their First Amendment rights for granted or didn’t know how they felt about it. This is a saddening fact. The youths of today are the adults of tomorrow and if they don’t know their rights where will the country be in 15 to 20 years?

But reading the article in my SAT class made me realize that even I take my First Amendment rights for granted, and I forget how lucky I truly am to write for a high school paper that isn’t censored by the school. But as of last week, I stopped taking those rights for granted and I never will again.

Over the edge with disrespecting freedom of the press

Lauren Thiery
Features Editor, the North Star

The world of journalism relating to celebrities, and the rock scene in particular, is vastly different from an everyday news story. The paparazzi and so-called “journalists” alike who hound and stalk celebrities in both their public and private lives bring disgrace to the journalism community. While they should be doing their jobs with honor and integrity, they do it unjustly and improperly to the point of hurting whoever their subject is. Their scandal does not protect the right to freedom of the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A perfect example of this unconstitutional journalistic approach of writing is intertwined in the Rolling Stone story, “Over the Edge With Pete Doherty,” by Mark Binelli. Although stories about rock musicians will typically and truthfully be filled with crude humor, details of an edgy lifestyle and references to illegal activities, they should be reported with integrity. Although these aspects of the person's life may be true, emphasizing them and detailing them to the degree of degrading someone is an improper use of journalistic writing.

For example, in Binelli's story, he writes, “At that moment, the door bursts open and a young woman races past us. She is crying hysterically and not wearing enough clothes for this frigid night. Johnny frowns, then shepherds me inside.” This event was observed at 3:30 a.m. when Doherty, singer of rock bands The Libertines and Babyshambles, was not aware of his visiters peering into his windows. Also, after describing an incriminating tour bus scenario involving heroin and cocaine, he writes, “Moments later, Doherty boards the bus, squints at me and says, ‘You always manage to turn up at the best times, don't you?’”

These two quotations are merely a sample of countless occasions when the line of what is appropriate journalistic behavior and what is not is crossed. Although this particular story is about a British man, who the First Amendment does not apply to, ethical journalism should still be prevalent because instances such as this are only too common around the world. It doesn’t matter what country a story is written in—there should be a universal ethical and moral journalistic approach to writing in which the writer delivers their story honorably and not under false pretenses.

Religion: Freedom for all

Talia Shifron
Calendar Editor, the North Star

There is a bumper sticker that says, “God is too big to fit into any one religion.” All people praying in their own ways are needed in order to rejoice in God’s greatness. This idea celebrates how many different religions there are in America, and how much diversity this contributes to American society. Freedom of religion is one of the greatest gifts that the founders of America gave to the people of this country. The people of the United States are extremely lucky to live in a country where there is freedom of religion. This allows people to practice their beliefs openly without having to be afraid of being persecuted for their beliefs.

There are two important aspects of the first amendment’s stance on freedom of religion. First, the government cannot promote a particular religion and there must be a distinct separation between religion and state. Secondly, all citizens can openly practice any religion that they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s freedom or hurt anyone. This is so important because it allows for diversity among people. It allows people to grow and learn from each other and not be set in one particular way.

Throughout the generations, most countries have had an established state religion. People who did not agree to follow that particular religion were often kicked out of the country or killed. People were only as safe as the ruler of the time allowed them to be. People were either forced to believe in a religion that they might not have agreed with or forced to wander from country to country. This practice doesn’t honor God but rather forces people to conform to something they don’t believe in.

Many of the people who founded America were faced with religious persecution in England before they arrived in the United States. Therefore they were looking for some place to come to so they could practice the religion of their choice in freedom. Because of their commitment to religious freedom they were able to overcome obstacles and establish a country where there is religious freedom. To this day America’s greatness is partially because of our founders’ commitment to religious freedom.

Amendment's Abuse a Slap in Face

Ariel Boehnlein
Copy Editor, the North Star

“Freedom of speech” is one of the most overly used phrases in America. Its positive connotations show that America gives its citizens rights that many countries don’t allow. Some even consider our freedom evil. However, more recently, especially in fights with authority, the phrase has been turned into a scapegoat and an excuse for boorish behavior.

This practice is becoming more and more prevalent, especially among teenagers. People think that “freedom of speech” is a pass to be rude and even threatening because it’s their right as an American. Although those who cry, “but it’s my right,” are legally correct and can’t be persecuted, it’s a shame that people believe it’s okay to take advantage of such a precious gift.

Americans should appreciate their First Amendment rights because we're extremely lucky. Countries all over the world, especially those in the Middle East, have officials who will punish, imprison or even kill those who speak against their authority.

In America, more or less of all the First Amendment’s sections are taken for granted. Even though government officials claim that God has a great power of influence over them, Americans are able to choose their religion, if any, and express it in a safe manner. Nevertheless, many people disregard this and say that they’re being denied the freedoms and rights that they deserve. Yet, non-Islamic as well as Islamic people are executed for not recognizing their country’s God. Obviously, that isn’t the case in America.

The next section of the First Amendment is freedom of press. While it can be argued that publications have every right to print something, even if it's controversial or harmful to a person’s reputation, tabloids defame their subjects simply for money with no regard to the subject’s privacy rights. Again, they have the freedom to publish what they wish but they’re taking advantage of that right when they publish false information, or pay sources to give them desirable, possibly even false, quotes.

Instances such as this, along with many other cases of First Amendment abuse, occur daily and are a slap in the face to James Madison, the original creator of the Bill of Rights, and all of those who do get persecuted for what they say in countries less fortunate than our own. Our rights are something that should be cherished and appreciated, not abused and disregarded.

IDS story features North award nomination

The Indiana Daily Student produced a story about BHSN Publications' nomination for the First Amendment Press Freedom Award.

Click here to read the story.

Defamation versus free expression

Samantha Stillions
Managing Editor, the North Star

If there is one word that journalists despise, its defamation. According to dictionary.com, defamation is “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.”

When a journalist writes a story that contains false information detrimental to another person’s reputation, the one defamed can file a suit for defamation of character. Every person has the right to defend themselves when they feel they have been falsely accused of something.

On the other hand, the very existence of these laws interferes with rights listed in the First Amendment. The press has the right to print the truth, even when the truth is not pretty. Citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of expression. Thus, if a reporter or any person writes something unfavorable, he/she has the right to do so, according to the First Amendment.

Because of these two conflicting ideas, the government had to create a balance in order to reconcile both of these rights. In 1964, the ruling of New York Times v Sullivan helped set the standard by which the U.S. court system judges cases of defamation. In the case, Montgomery County Commissioner L.B. Sullivan claimed that the New York Times had published an advertisement that defamed his character. The court ruled that a defamation case having to do with a political figure must present evidence proving that the publication knew that the information was false. This ruling is called the “actual malice” standard.

However, the way in which a private person’s defamation suit is determined is different. In Gertz v. Welch (1973), a magazine called American Opinion published an article stating that a Chicago attorney named Elmer Gertz had helped frame a police officer. The article contained several incorrect statements. The original court told Gertz that he had to have proof of “actual malice.” Gertz disagreed, saying that he was a private person, not a public figure, so the same guidelines could not be used to determine his case. Gertz appealed to the Supreme Court. They determined that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.”

These cases changed the way in which defamation suits are handled. Publications cannot say whatever they want about people, but people cannot take everything written about them to court either. If such events had never occurred, many publications and reporters in the U.S. would not write the way in which they do. Controversial subjects would never be covered and stories would generate much less feeling among their readers. The First Amendment forced the government to allow publications the freedom to present facts and truths about people. Without it, reporters and writers wouldn’t be able to say anything about anybody without having a suit filed against them.

Because of the First Amendment, newspapers and publications are able to do their jobs – gather the facts and inform people of the truth.

Pushing Back: Media rights in unwanted places

Anna Connors
Managing Editor, the North Star

In journalism, the phrase “off the record” is not a common term. These unwanted words belong between the whispering lips of close friends and in the privacy of closed meetings. They do not however, belong in the Indiana Memorial Union’s Whittenberger Auditorium this past Tuesday in front of a public audience that got in for free. Why then, were they there?

Meghan O’Sullivan, President Bush’s former deputy national security advisor was scheduled to speak that night about recent events concerning the Iraq War. However, a glitch between the people who invited O’Sullivan and the Indiana Daily Student (IDS) took place. O’Sullivan ended up withdrawing from the presentation claiming she wasn’t feeling well and there was a violation of her agreement to speak only “off the record.”

Throughout the past week numerous features and public-written editorials have been pointing fingers in all directions trying to show which organization caused this distress. But equally important in this issue are the rights at stake from lectures like this. The fact is that O’Sullivan had no legal right to control what media outlets were used doing her lecture. And because of the request, the media almost had an obligation to be there.

“Off the record” is something a journalist can either accept or ignore. And the public has absolutely no responsibility. Herald Times (HT) writer, James Boyd, even admits that the HT was planning on covering the event despite the request. And IDS editor-in-chief, Carrie Ritchie, said it was ridiculous to think that anything O’Sullivan said would stay within the auditorium.

The ethics of the request was just one problem surrounding IU’s first planned off-the-record speech. When the presenter runs no risk of being repeated, what is the incentive to even be honest? Our First Amendment rights give the freedom in this situation, to the press. A “private” public speech is just the oxymoron it sounds like.

If all former government workers went off the record how could the press ever serve their watchdog purposes? Why even speak if you don’t want to be heard? Off-the-record is a different breed of confidentiality since it doesn’t protect identity. If nothing can be repeated, how are facts checked, would anything she could possibly say legitimately mean anything to anyone? Welcome to the new “no liability” presentation. Drop your rights at the door.

North featured by Kent State

The Kent State School of Journalism is featuring BHSN as a school operating as an open forum for student expression.

Click here to visit North's profile.

First Amendment Symposium

The Indiana High School Press Association is hosting another First Amendment Symposium at the Indiana Statehouse March 4 from 4 to 7 p.m. There will be several speakers and presentations with updates on First Amendment issues, and the Indiana High School Journalist of the Year and David Adams awards will also be announced.

BHSN Publications will be there, so come join us!

First Amendment Forum images

North Central High School Publications Director Tom Gayda

North senior Jeremy Gotwals asks the panel a question

Audience members raise their hands during the Q&A session

IU School of Journalism Association Dean Amy Reynolds

Indiana High School Press Association Executive Director Diana Hadley

Indiana High School Journalism Institute Director Jack Dvorak holding the special First Amendment edition of the North Star

Columbus North High School adviser Kim Green

Interim IU Student Media Director Nancy Comiskey (left) speaking with students

All images by Clark Hadley

Thank you for our rights

By Elizabeth Munroe
Editor in Chief, the North Star

At Bloomington North, we are incredibly fortunate to have an administration that understands and honors the rights of free press guaranteed by the First Amendment. Our administrators have never tried to subject our publications to prior review nor do they have any plans to do so. Similarly, our adviser steps back and allows the publications to be truly student-run, with the student editors, including myself, making all decisions about content. In fact, our adviser refuses to do anything but give suggestions and only does that upon request.

In this way, student journalists at North are guaranteed the same freedoms of the press offered to professional journalists. This approach provides for an excellent opportunity to grow and learn. Without such an opportunity, I do not believe our paper would have won the Hoosier Star award last year, an award given to the top five high school newspapers in Indiana. Similarly, without such freedoms, our staff members would not win as many Harvey Awards from the Indiana High School Press Association, naming them some of the top writers, photographers and designers in the state.

It is these freedoms that allow students to learn how to practice responsible, ethical journalism. Because the responsibility for the content of the newspaper is ours, we take care in what we choose to publish. When we publish something possibly controversial, we make sure we have good reasons to do so and strong evidence behind the story. For example, in October, we published a story, complete with photos (although not showing faces), about the “dirty dancing” at our school’s Homecoming. The article examined the rules of school dances and the role of chaperones. Many people were upset by the article’s criticism of the Homecoming dance and the photos, but we believed it was an issue that needed to be addressed. We responsibly, however, published all six letters to the editor, even though there were none in support of our decision to publish the article. Had our administration or adviser banned us from publishing this story, the issue of inappropriate dancing would have remained unaddressed. With such constrictions, our paper would not have served one of its most important purposes: acting as a public forum for our school. Not only this, but the student journalists involved in writing and publishing the story would not have learned how to responsibly handle controversy and criticism.

The staff of North publications are sincerely thankful for the guarantees of free press granted to them by our school administrators and adviser. Many schools in the state and the country are not as lucky, so we are truly thankful.

Reflection on the First Amendment special issue

December was a hectic month for the North Star, Bloomington High School North’s news magazine. The North Star comes out every three weeks, on dates set by the editorial staff before the school year begins. However, as we were planning stories and photos for our December issue, set to come out Dec. 14th, our staff had an unusual idea.
Our adviser Ryan Gunterman had planned a First Amendment forum for our school on Dec. 13, where renowned journalism professors and high school advisers from around the state were coming to speak about the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Our staff decided it would be a good idea to inform students about the First Amendment and to interest them in the issue before the forum.
So, we got ambitious. We decided to create not a special section in our December issue, but rather an entire, 8-page special issue devoted to First Amendment awareness, to come out before the forum, on Dec. 7. The first four pages of the issue were each devoted to a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. These freedoms were illustrated through features stories about the pledge of allegiance, online speech on Facebook and Myspace, recent cases involving freedom of the press and our school corporation’s press policy, and local Right to Life protestors. These stories were followed by a staff editorial, written by myself, and a column emphasizing the importance of First Amendment freedoms. The back page of the issue was a story written in remembrance of David Adams, a student media director at IU who the staff felt deserved to be honored for his work with students and support of the First Amendment. We decided to make the overall design for the issue resemble a manila folder, emphasizing the fact that we were conveying important information to our readers.
Creating this special issue required extra work from everyone on staff, especially the editors. Many people ended up writing one or two more stories than they usually write each month, which around the time of final exams was a lot to ask. Not only this, but the special issue required us to stay after school more than usual. For each issue, our editors stay after school on Monday to finish designs, often not leaving until 7 or 7:30 p.m. Afterward, I take home print-outs of the entire paper and edit it, returning the next day to make changes with the help of my fellow editors. This stressful experience usually only happens once every three weeks. However, with our decision to create the special issue, in December, we had to go through this procedure two Mondays in a row.
The issue was well worth the effort. As a student journalist, I know the importance of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and have a deep appreciation for them, ingrained in me since my first day of Introduction to Journalism my freshman year. Therefore, it is appalling to me how little most high school students know about the First Amendment. According to a 2006 Knight Foundation survey, 76 percent of students say that they either don’t know anything about the First Amendment or they take it for granted. This lack of knowledge was obvious at the forum held at our school, where one senior even asked what the First Amendment stated. By producing this special issue and addressing the First Amendment through interesting stories and photos, I believe the North Star did its duty to the students at Bloomington High School North and enlightened them about one of the most important guarantees of freedom in the U.S.

Elizabeth Munroe
Editor in Chief, the North Star

Revealing Anonymous Sources: A violation of the First Amendment

By Scarlett Heydt
Voices editor

The First Amendment is something that a lot of people either don’t pay attention to or they don’t fully appreciate the liberties it gives people. Probably the most important part of the First Amendment is the guarantee of freedom of expression. There are of course exceptions to this rule. For instance, people are allowed to express themselves, but not in such a way that advocates the overthrow of the government.
However, this brings to light another part of the First Amendment, freedom of the press. In my mind, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are linked. It is necessary for newspapers to have the right to express views and expose injustices without having any sort of penalty.
Unfortunately though, that part of the First Amendment is not always upheld. In the media, there have recently been several cases where journalists have been forced to reveal anonymous sources. To me, this is a violation of two parts of the First Amendment. Journalists should not be persecuted for printing anything, as long as they uphold journalistic ethics and standards. Not to mention, anonymous sources should be granted the right to stay anonymous. Journalists use sources to tell a story. By forcing them to give up their credibility and name these sources, the only alternative being jail, that’s ruining their opportunity to express themselves.
By making journalists reveal anonymous sources, the courts are taking away their First Amendment rights. If this is going to continue, what’s the point of even pretending the First Amendment guarantees basic rights? This shouldn’t even be a question. The First Amendment is first because it’s so important. People, the courts in particular, need to be reminded of this, before First Amendment rights disappear completely.

Recent cases involving anonymous sources:

- In July 2005, Judith Miller, a reporter from the New York Times was sent to jail for not revealing her source in a story which leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. She spent eighty-five days in jail and was released on September 9th, 2005.
- In September 2006, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada were sentenced to eighteen months in jail for not revealing a source. Their source gave them information that helped them write a book that exposed some professional sports players as steroid and /or drug users.
- Josh Wolf, a freelance journalist and blogger, was jailed in August 2006. He refused to submit his entire tape of a free-trade protest that he filmed in July 2005. He was in jail for two-hundred and twenty-six days, the longest any journalist in America has been jailed for protecting sources.

Forum featured on j-school website

The Indiana University School of Journalism website is featuring a story and photos about the Bloomington HS North First Amendment Forum.

The forum consisted of a panel of several journalism school faculty members as well as area journalism advisers and the president of the IU chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. Nearly 200 high school students attended the event with publications students from schools such as Bloomington HS South, Martinsville, and Eastern Greene County joining those from North to discuss the First Amendment and how it applies to their everyday lives.

Click here to view the story.

Images from the event will be uploaded to this blog in the near future.