Table of Contents

Tinker v. Des Moines

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Arkansas Student Publications Act

In conclusion

Sources

History.com says: According to this website, the First Amendment states that Congress cannot make laws that restrict the freedom of press or speech.

Har-Ber high school would have more difficulty proving their case under the First Amendment, as they would be required to prove that the newspaper had libelous content. However, I am not certain if they could prove this. Most people seemed upset over the story, but some claimed it was “extremely dividing and disruptive” at the school.

This argument is more relevant to the newspaper than the way they express themselves in what they publish. In my opinion, the newspaper has an advantage because it did not needlessly try to cause libel. Instead of bringing the issue to light to let people know what was going on, the school district at Har-Ber High Schools didn’t appreciate it.

Near v. Minnesota

Oyer.org reported that Near v. Minnesota concerned a small Minneapolis-based newspaper, “The Saturday Press”. According to Oyer.org, the case of Near v. Minnesota involved a small local Minneapolis newspaper by the name of “The Saturday Press”. Then, the local officials filed a permanent order against “The Saturday Press”, on the basis that its content was deemed to be malicious, defamatory and scandalous. According to the law, anyone who is ‘engaged in business’ and regularly publishes or circulates a newspaper that is obscene, lascivious or lewd or one that contains a defamatory or malicious article, will be guilty of nuisance. Both the temporary and permanent injunctions issued by a trial court were upheld by the state Supreme Court.

In this case, the district could have used the Near case to support their decision to suspend and restrict the publication of further content.

The decision in this case is difficult to apply. Near v. Minnesota showed that the ‘Saturday Press’ had violated public nuisance laws before. The Saturday Press had printed material that was disruptive to society’s daily functions. It could be lewd or based on stories the paper had published. It’s tricky because we don’t know exactly what was published by the Har-Ber High School Newspaper and whether it would be considered a public nuisance. This case could benefit the Har-Ber High School.

Tinker, v. Des MoinesAccordingly, according to uscourts.gov the case of Tinker, v. Des Moines concerned a case in the Supreme Court that dealt with a Des Moines school, Iowa in which students organized an anti-Vietnam War silent protest. Students had planned on wearing black armbands at school as a silent protest. But the principal knew about it and threatened to suspend them if they donned the armbands. Despite several warnings, students decided to wear black armbands. The parents of the students who were suspended sued the school because they felt that their children had been violated in their right to freedom of speech. The school won a U.S. District Court ruling, stating that armbands can indeed disrupt learning. Students tried to appeal the decision to a U.S. Court of Appeals. But they lost. So, the students took the case to the United States Supreme Court.

Tinker v. Des Moines would have remained in court, but the school district could have used this logic to argue that an article from the Har-Ber High School’s newspaper was disruptive of learning as it created a great deal of buzz around the campus and town. However, this case’s final verdict was reached at the Supreme Court and the Des Moines district school lost. It wouldn’t make sense for them to use it to prove their point.

Tinker V. Des Moines could have been the best argument for the newspaper of Har-Bar High School. Just like armbands were disruptive when they were worn, this article could be viewed as such. However, it could be argued that the article did not disrupt learning, just as armbands did not. The high courts agreed that the rights of students must be protected. It even stated, “Students are not deprived of their constitutional rights by entering a school.”

Hazelwood V. KuhlmeierAccordingly to oyer.com, the newspaper sponsored by Hazelwood East was “The Spectrum” and was edited and written by students on campus. Robert E. Reynolds was the principal of the school when he received the proofs in May 1983. Some of them were not to his liking. Reynolds thought that two articles in this issue were inappropriate. He ordered not to publish the pages which contained the articles. Cathy Kuhlmeier brought the case in court with two former Hazelwood East school students.

Hazelwoodv. Kuhlmeier was a great example of what the Har-Bar District School could do to win. The result of the case stated that schools are required to have high standards in student speech. They can therefore monitor and modify the contents of the newspaper if they don’t match with school values. The school can still allow some form of student free speech, but they will need to monitor and supervise it.

Hazelwood against Kuhlmeier may not be the best case for a school’s newspaper when they want to say that the article about football players should be published. This is because the case set precedent that a school can censor a newspaper’s content, particularly if that content doesn’t align with their values. In addition, the school might hold the paper to a stricter standard than non-newspaper kids.

Arkansas Student Publications ActThis Act has a great deal of importance for Arkansas students, as it protects both their freedom and speech. This is why I’ll be focusing on Sections 3 and 4. Sections as they are written:

“Section 3. Students’ publications policies must recognize the right to expression of students within the guidelines of Section 2 of this Act. This includes the right to express themselves in publications sponsored by schools, regardless of whether they are financially supported by the school, use school facilities or produced by a class.

Section 4 outlines the central points of the document. Student publications policies must recognize that truthfulness, fairness and accuracy are essential for journalism and that certain types of publications are not permitted by students.

Publications that offend minors according to state law.

Publications that violate state law’s definition of libel or slander;

Publications that violate privacy as defined by the state laws;

Publications, which are intended to incite students and create a clear present danger that they will commit illegal acts within school grounds, violate lawful school rules or disrupt the smooth operation of school.”

The school would have no use for this Act, as it is intended to protect the students who write for newspapers and their right to free speech. It is stated in one section that the school boards can make their own rules as long it doesn’t become overbearing. Only if Har-Bar had violated school regulations could the school use this act against them.

This Act could be used to argue against the school district. Its purpose is actually to protect student-run organizations, such as school newspapers and their freedom of speech. The rules and regulations set by this particular school board could make this a tricky situation. The Arkansas Student Publications Act can be defined by the local school boards. If a newspaper doesn’t violate it directly, the school board may not have much power.

ConclusionI believe, after reading all the cases and other acts, laws, rules and regulations, particularly those that pertain to Arkansas and other similar cases, that the Har-Bar public school district should not be allowed to publish or run stories by the school paper. Tinker’s v. Des Moines weighed heavily in my decision. The armbands, which were seen by some as a distraction and by those opposing the story that it was, was also a factor. Both cases are very similar so I feel that this newspaper should still be allowed to run. The Arkansas Student Publications Act is a good example of how the newspaper can still be involved in the decision-making process, even though the school has set the framework. The freedom of expression is important to the newspaper and they should have the final say.

Cites

Student Press Law Center. 10 April 1995. 1995, splc.org/1995/04/arkansas-student-publications-act/.

Editors, History.com. “First Amendment.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Dec. 2017, www.history.com/topics/unitedstates-constitution/first-amendment.

‘Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.’ Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836. Accessed on 26 April. 2019.

‘Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson.’ Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/283us697. Accessed on 26 April. 2019.

Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast.