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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
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.
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.”
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.”
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
