Introduction In higher education, public universities/colleges in the United States of America must respect students’ civil rights. These rights are stated under the United States Constitution, one entitlement is the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. Every student in an institution has the right to the freedom of speech. One free speech topic is the freedom in student press/ publication. Freedom in student press/publication is a speech is protected under the First Amendment. The student has the right to his or her own opinion.
When these rights are violated, the student can file suit against the college and/or university. Criteria for Protected and Unprotected Speech Some cases regarding freedom of press has made it to the United States Supreme Court and others have been settled in local courts. The dialog of the cases help shape the First Amendment and have become landmark cases. Students’ speech is protected under the United States Constitution, an institutions must respect the statutes of the First Amendment. Many colleges and/or universities in the United States have student organizations.
The student organizations are first approved by the institution. Organization to have the privilege to use schools newspapers, facilities, and the right to pass out flyers or any other sort of publication. Many student organizations extent awareness and fund raisers at schools. A public institutions is not allowed to reject or deny freedom of press of any sort, due to the fact the publication may make other individuals feel uncomfortable. Unless, they are fighting words, true threats, incitement, obscenity, and defamation onstitute potential exceptions to the expensive protection offered by the First Amendment (Fossey, 2015, pp. 334).
Freedom of press/publication is protected under the First Amendment, unless it promotes violence or is a threat. The student affairs professionals’ goal is to prevent unwanted cases from happening. Also, student affairs must insure the Constitutional rights of all students are not violated and must provide the best practices when assisting students. Context and Reasonable Regulation of Speech When it comes to the context and regulation of speech, there are many cases set the framework of the student speech issue.
One case is Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973), 410 U. S. 667. In this case Barbara Papish, a 32year-old graduate journalism student at the University of Missouri, was expelled for distributing in the heart of a campus newspaper containing assuredly indecent speech. (Senat, 2013) The newspaper cartoon Papish published did not state any violence nor had true threats. University of Missouri did not have the right to expel Papish based on the fact the cartoon had offensive language. The courts filed in the favor of Papish.
Papish case used reference from Healy v. James, in which the Court had alleged that even though a state university could enforce reasonable rules governing student conduct, “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment (Senat, 2013). ” Papish cartoon was protected because it did not promote threats nor violence. Another case to consider is lota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Manson University the “ugly woman” skit included students’ in blackface which in turns promoted racist and sexist overtones.
The university stopped the skit and also wanted for the fraternity to get approval before having any other social events. This was a violation of the fraternities First Amendment. The fraternity was protected under free speech, even though other students felt violated; the skit it did not encourage violence. The student affairs professional job is to ensure that the civil rights of every student is not violated. There are other court cases that also meet the criteria to be protected under freedom of press. Other Related Cases Hosty v. Carter Citation: 412. F. 3d 731, 2005; Appeal to 7th Circuit.
Full Case Name: Hosty v. Carter Facts: Margaret Hosty, a student at Governors State University, was part of the student organization Student Communications Media Board (SCMB). SCMB wanted to publish an article in the university’s paper the Innovator; the newspaper is supported by student fees. The Dean of Student Affairs, Patricia Carter, has to review stories before they are printed for the newspaper. At this time Hosty’s article was requested to be redone and asked to change the wording. Hosty article was never denied, she was asked to revise the article, and filed a suit stating SCMB’s First Amendment rights were violated when Mrs.
Carter requested for the article to be revised. Mrs. Carter claimed that school newspapers were not a “forum for public expression,” and authorized the prior restraint exercised by the administrator “so long as [his] actions [were] reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns (Healy, 2007). ” Issues: Did Mrs. Carter violate SCMB First amendment right to freedom of press? Rationales: Undecided, SCMB rights were violated; Supreme Court denied certiorari. Judicial Opinion: Hosty’s was not denied the right to publish her article, this meet the First Amendment was not violated.
Mrs. Carter only requested for SCMB to make some changes to the article before approval, she did not stop the publication of the article. Many organizations and others disagree with the court’s decision; stating that Hosty’s first amendment was violated. Due to the fact, Mrs. Carter asked for Hosty to revise the article, which means change to SCMB wording or opinion. The Hazelwood decision referenced only high school students and college students are rarely minors; their publications are most often independent of the curriculum of individual classes (Healy, 2007).
In other words, college students are mutual adults and aware of their opinion. Since 2006, the status has not changed regarding the case. Greg Lukianoff (2006) reported “the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a dean who demanded prepublication review of a student newspaper at Governors’ State University in Illinois—because the administration did not like its content—is not liable for her brazen act of censorship. ” Lukianoff is correct in his opinion, but this will have to be approved by the Supreme Court; which denied reviewing of the case on February 21, 2006.
