Sunday, Jan. 13, marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Hazelwood decision, and The Paly Voice would like to take this opportunity to speak out against what we view as a violation of First Amendment rights.
The Hazelwood decision was the result of 1988 Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled 5-3 that the administration of Hazelwood East High School had the right to censor objectionable stories. This sent a message to all other school programs that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply to students and that directors or supervisors of school-sponsored media groups retain the right to censor anything they deem out of line with the educational mission of the school, according to Student Press Law Center’s website.
California, along with Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts, has passed legislation nullifying the Hazelwood decision and granting public schools the First Amendment rights they deserve. The students at Palo Alto High School are lucky enough to benefit from this legislation and do not feel the implications of the Hazelwood decision. The staff of The Paly Voice does not have to worry about our stories being censored, and have the freedom to write exactly what we consider important, despite potential controversy, and rejoice in our First Amendment right of freedom of the press. However, we believe all students throughout the country should have the same opportunities as we have been given. Without the freedom to publish what they want, how can young journalists gain the experience necessary to grow and develop? And how can the public really know what is going on inside a school?
Good journalism is often controversial; a good article really makes you think and question the world around you. Putting a cap on that restricts the amount of information given to the public and stunts the growth of beginning journalists. In the “real world,” outside of high school, journalists are constantly pushing the envelope, forcing the public to question their beliefs and learn more about the world, so why aren’t high school students given that same chance?
The Paly Voice feels the Hazelwood decision is not only restrictive and unfair but also a violation of the Constitution. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Hazelwood decision blatantly deprives students of freedom of the press, yet if Palo Alto Unified School District forced students to pray in classrooms, people would be outraged. Why is it acceptable to flout one area of the amendment, but not another?
As student journalists in California, we feel lucky to be granted the freedom to write the stories we consider relevant without having to worry that they will be censored by adults around us, and we’d like to take that freedom and use it here — right now, today — to take a stand for those schools less fortunate than our own. In order to acknowledge the anniversary of the Hazelwood Decision, The Paly Voice will put a message on our sight today to recognize the lost rights of others. We would like to sincerely and explicitly express our reservations with the unfair and unconstitutional Hazelwood decision, and urge the students around us to use the freedom we’re so lucky to have to speak out for those who can’t.
Daria Godorozha • Jan 14, 2013 at 4:44 pm
But what if what the staff want to censor has nothing to do with “censorship”; it has to do with student safety as in the actual case of Hazlewood vs. Kulheimer. This case doesn’t overrule Tinker V.s Des Moines which gives full protection to all articles without clear and present danger. Furthermore the case Dean Vs. Utica which was after this one gives full protection to all political writing within school journalism. The only reason why this case was decided the way it was was to give staff a basic amount of control to prevent students from being put into danger by articles such as in the original case of Hazlewood Vs. Kulheimer where the pregnant girls identities were at risk. Schools are legally responsible if the students they watch over aren’t completely safe, they must be able to have power to prevent any dangerous actions because they are in the end responsible; it has nothing to do with free speech. As for the second part of the case; just as proper newspapers must follow laws, so do school newspapers have to follow school rules because at the end of the day the whole purpose of student journalism is for it to be a class so taking an article out for sexual innuendo does not violate the first amendment in any way.
Bob • Jan 14, 2013 at 6:06 am
In many ways, the professional media is bound by soft law Hazelwood, for 3 reasons:
-The FCC
-The monopoly on airwaves is held by the federal govt.
-There are basically 4-5 companies that control the media: Disney, Viacom, Fox, Etc…
As a result of the mixed monopoly on speech, the political discourse has degraded to being confined to an opinion range of Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney, AKA more of the same. While there is no shady Pentagon office with a group of men in black suits plotting to brainwash Americans into becoming mindless sheep, if such a group existed, what would be different?