According to the Student Press Law Center, a 1969 Supreme Court decision contended that, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.” Since this proclamation was made, there have nevertheless remained many obstacles for student journalists in high schools across the U.S.
In some cases, the administrators prevail due to First Amendment exemptions for private schools, as the law may only prohibit public school officials from suppressing students’ free speech and press freedoms. School-sponsored publications may also be subjected to censorship in some cases, but it varies from situation to situation.
Do you believe the First Amendment should apply equally to student journalists at the high school level as it does to professional journalists? Let’s explore what’s going on in the status quo:
Legal Precedents
In 1988, the Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier decision allowed administrators to censor some school-sponsored content at their own discretion. For instance, school yearbooks have been subjected to censorship practices with the justification that they are “non-public forums,” and thus, not protected by the First Amendment.
Compared to student journalists at public colleges and universities, high school student journalists ultimately have fewer legal protections and face significantly more censorship when they attempt to publish potentially controversial material in their school newspapers and other publications.
Attempts to Limit Student Reporting Efforts
There have been many attempts by administrators to completely censor, alter or restrict high school journalists’ reporting efforts. For example, high schoolers in Vermont recently fought for their First Amendment freedoms when an interim principal tried to censor a report about a guidance counselor who had falsified student transcripts, intimidated employees, and revealed a student’s private information to another party without the student’s prior knowledge and consent.
This is just one of many instances of administrators trying to prevent their students from engaging in their First Amendment freedoms. Do you believe that high schoolers should have the same free press rights as their professional counterparts? The legal battles are far from over, but time and politics will determine if youth ought to have equal access to their First Amendment rights as adult journalists do.
The Third Annual National Symposium took place at the National Constitution Center on September 15th in the City of Philadelphia under the theme “E Pluribus Unum or Divided?” exploring what unites us as a country and where social divisions might be widening.
The National Constitution Center hosted the symposium for the 3rd year in a row. Morning sessions hosted panel discussions on social divisions as they relate to the First Amendment. A working lunch addressed ways in which we can engage in civil dialogue both as students and non-students. During the afternoon, the forum spotlighted the NFL Kneeling Controversy in a Town Hall forum debate with a veteran, NFL football player and other perspectives featured.
Why does “fake news” get so much attention in the press these days? Tabloids and media rumors have been around for centuries, but the spread of “fake news” is a relatively recent phenomenon that has become a serious problem thanks to the instantaneous sharing capabilities of email, texts and social media.
Is “fake news” as big a threat to our First Amendment freedoms as some people proclaim it to be? Let’s unpack the potential implications:
Freedom of the Press
During a time when newspapers and other media organizations are struggling to stay afloat financially, it’s increasingly concerning to witness how fake news stories with clickbait headlines are getting more engagement and shares on social media than legitimate news stories. This poses a serious threat to the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment because fake news stories distort public perceptions about real-life events, which has led to problematic consequences such as:
Increased public distrust of media organizations
Lower subscription rates for credible news outlets
Higher rates of censorship, harassment and even violence against journalists
Alarming incidents of people acting upon fake news stories, such as the infamous “Pizzagate” scandal
Unfounded “Fake News” Accusations
Another major concern related to fake news and the First Amendment is the prominence of politicians, corporate executives, and other societal leaders referring to news stories they disagree with as “fake news,” regardless of the truthful nature of the story in question. By dismissing unfavorable news stories as “fake,” these individuals — many of whom have large followings on social media and in real life — are contributing to negative public sentiment towards journalists and media organizations.
Furthermore, discrediting news stories and/or organizations by labeling them as “fake” is making it increasingly difficult for members of society to discern between fact, “alternative facts,” and fiction. This only furthers public mistrust in otherwise highly credible news outlets and allows an individual’s persuasiveness to outweigh factual reporting published by diligent journalists.
To help combat the growing issue of fake news in our society, be sure to read through FactCheck.org’s guidelines for detecting fake news stories before sharing a questionable news story on social media or dismissing something you disagree with as “fake news.”
Michel Faulkner speaks on the NFL kneeling controversy panel at the 3rd annual National Symposium in Philadelphia
Many FAV supporters had the privilege of interacting with experts from the first amendment space in Philadelphia during our national Symposium, in addition to meeting lots of people interested in civil discourse. After Dr. Wilson Goode, the first African American Mayor of Philadelphia, provided a thought provoking keynote address, the opening plenary panelists explored the contours of first amendment trends on college campuses, in the media, and through the lenses of technology and social media. These nonpartisan experts agreed that America’s current state of political polarization could not be addressed with technological fixes or government involvement. They concluded that we as citizens needed to develop political and social paths forward to resolve some of the most vexing challenges facing our country. So, how do we do that?
After our breakout trainers provided tools for civic engagement, Kern Beare, Founder of Pop the Bubble, demonstrated how to engage in a “Difficult Conversation,” and Janessa Gans Wilder, Founder and Executive Director of the Euphrates Institute, led students on a journey of self-exploration to determine what in their personal stories shaped their current perspectives of the world. Following the Symposium, Kern led several Difficult Conversation workshops in the DMV area, including Capitol Hill on September 18th, Frederick, Maryland on September 27th, and Arlington, Virginia on September 28th. We seem to have a thirst for understanding how to bridge divides in our society. The partisan rhetoric alienates many people from wanting to engage in the public square. However, when we host events that establish norms of first seeking to understand andlisten, people tend to be willing to take the risk of venturing forth.
FAV will continue to collaborate in this space and is currently in discussions with strategic partners to bring our programming to the west coast. Don’t worry, we’ll return to Philly and DC, as well. Look for more opportunities to experience meaningful dialogue around sensitive issues like the conversation we hosted in Philadelphia. Kern moderated a discussion on the NFL Kneeling issue between Reverent Michel Faulkner, a former Jets Defensive Lineman, Scott Cooper, a retired Marine officer, and Mr. Alan Inman, a decade’s long leader and organizer in African American communities and Senior Advisor to the Global Peace Foundation. Speakers demonstrated civility to each other, as well as, audience members who asked questions or contributed to the discussion. Stay tuned for similar programming in future FAV events! The experience can be uplifting and contribute to healing some of the divisions within our present discourse.
Please forward this newsletter to friends and colleagues you think would appreciate FAV’s work. Subscribe here.
Yours in service,
Steve Miska and the FAV Team
3rd Annual First Amendment Voice National Symposium Highlights
Many people have been getting fired from their jobs recently due to content they posted on their personal social media accounts. Some of the well-known instances of someone losing a job due to their expressions on social media include:
Former Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn was fired for 2008-2009 era tweets containing offensive messages about race, women, the Holocaust and 9/11.
Former PR executive Justine Sacco, “jokingly” tweeted about not getting AIDS during a trip to Africa because she was white (she was fired before her plane landed after the tweet went viral).
A former nurse in Texas was fired for violating HIPAA by posting about a patient with measles in an anti-vaccination group in which she was a member.
There are many other instances of people losing their jobs over social media posts, but does this actually violate their rights to freedom of speech and expression? Let’s unpack some of the First Amendment issues at hand:
Free Speech in a Private Workplace
As the American Bar Association points out, “if this use of economic power to punish speech sounds un-American, remember that the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to suppress speech.” This means that individuals employed by private companies could be subjected to restrictive social media policies as conditions for their continued employment and possibly fired for posting anything that could hurt the company’s reputation — even if you don’t post anything about the company or people working there at all.
Union members may have greater freedom when it comes to posting whatever they want on social media without fearing retribution from an employer due to union negotiations and contracts prohibiting the termination of an employee for reasons related to social media activity. However, this is not guaranteed and if you’re considered an “at-will” employee, then the First Amendment likely will not protect you if you’re fired as a result of something you posted or even shared on social media.
Free Speech for Public Employees
Since public employees work for the government, most of them are given full First Amendment rights to freedom of speech in the workplace and beyond. As WorkplaceFairness.org explains, public employees can generally not be terminated from their positions unless their speech relates to a matter of “public concern”. But even this is a murky gray area that courts have yet to adequately and thoroughly define.
Watch What You Post on Social Media
To minimize the possibility of losing your job over what you post on social media, there are a few things you should do to lower your risk of retaliation:
Delete any old posts that could be considered inflammatory or offensive.
Limit how far back people can view your posts on your social profiles.
Don’t post anything online that you wouldn’t want to see connected to your name.
Increase your social media privacy and security settings.
Review your employer’s social media policy for employees (if one exists).
“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.”