First Amendment Issue: Help!!!!

[codebuster11]

Hey everyone. I have a question regarding an issue with First Amendment Rights.

First off, I was randomly assigned to prove that the Following was NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment. For the record, I believe it should be protected, but I MUST prove that the following is NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment


"Broley University is a public college in Colorado. Studnet Run newspaper wanted to print articles about STDs, provention, and homosexuality. They had a professor who was a gay man fighting AIDs give an interview. They were going to run these high-profile articles, but the Vice-Principal of the University treid to prevent the publication of the issue."

the school had a Constitution that essentially states that it is the goal of the university to educate sudents, blah blah blah, and make them so they can join the world with compassion and ethics. It also says that administrators and professors stand firmly behind the persuit of that goal, and to prepare the sutdnets to have the highest ethical and moral standards of the community.


Now, I agree the article is 100% protected, but I MUST prove that it was NOT PROTECTED.

Can anyone help? What Supreme Court Cases may help prove that its not protected? What Constitutional issue? Supreme Court references are beneficial.

Thanks and I hope for replies ASAP.

[Ian David]

1. The school has to prove that the article would be disruptive. n/t

[ThomCat]

2. The quote from the constitution is an ideal

but not a right. It does not specifically grant any right or privilage except as mediated through rules. If the college's rules state that publications need administrative approval then that's a closed case.

The first amendment only applies to censurship by the government, and it has never been absolute. Despite being a publically college, the college is not the government, and has a well established need to control what is published in official college publications.

I think freedom of speach should be more broadly protected, but your argument should be pretty simple. I'd stick to the ideas that there is a difference between ideals and actual rules, and the rules win.

[codebuster11]

3. Yeah...

This is hard and I still need a very solid argument.

[Buck Laser]

4. If the university is completely private,

...an argument could be made that constitutional guarantees of free speech do not apply there. That rationale has been used against high school newspaper editors, with some occastional success. It should be noted also that "absolute free speech" is not permitted on Democratic Underground, nor on many other internet sites, for the simple reason that the people who own the sites set the rules. I've seen posters on many different forums get banned because of their insistence in expressing their point of view.

But since it's stipulated that it's a public university, your problem will be harder. You'll have to argue that the newspaper is strictly educational in nature. If the students who produce it are volunteers, the argument may not work.

[Sammy Pepys]

5. Well, off the top of my head...

If I had to argue it was not protected, I might run with the line that the First Amendment applies to laws made by Congress (as evidenced by "Congress Shall Make No Law...") or that it would cause a disruption of some kind. Those are (fortunately) weak arguments, but they'd be the best I could come up with. The USSC has ruled about freedom of speech on campus several times, and they mostly uphold it.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. It is not a first amendment issue

If the school is the publisher of the paper, it has editiorial control. If the school is not the publisher, they have no say. Its a case of who owns the paper, not 1st amendment.

[Guy Fawkes]

7. Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier (S. Court)

1987 ruling: school newspapers (secondary schools) are not forums for student expression and are therefore limited in their first-ammendment protection.

(Man, I'm glad I took that Gov. class)

[northzax]

9. and as I referenced below

in the last session, the Court applied Hazelwood to the university level, as well.

[northzax]

8. if the school lends its name to a newspaper

it can pick and choose what it wants to go into that paper. Plain and simple. If the paper uses school facilities, school money or equipment, and is published on campus, the school can dictate what goes into the newspaper.

for the Constitutional reasoning check out Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988. most recently, the Court applied Hazelwood to the case of Hosty v. Carter last term, refusing to grant cert to a lower court case that ruled the school administration could enforce censorship on a university paper. Yes, Hosty only applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin right now, but there is no established case law in the Tenth Circuit that would contradict Hosty.

now go read the decisions, and stop having us do your homework for you! :) they're in the public domain, so you can quote Justice White to your heart's content.

[slide to the left]

10. There is a SC case about that

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

The VP and the admin and the school are considered the publisher. The publisher can say what does/not go in the paper.

The SC has stayed out of college paper cases, but this SC might rule with the admin.

However, the papers charter should have the rules about the "final say" somewhere.

It is not a first amend. violation even though I wish it was.

(I have a journalism degree and teach US history)

[SeaBob]

11. Not protected.

Dear CodebusterII
Your assignment samacks of a political agenda. It is better for the school, in numerous ways, to let the article run than try to stop it and end up in a lawsuit.

[nealmhughes]

12. Unfortunately, the publisher has complete control, and the university

in this case is the publisher. No need to go any further, all other posters have found the case law for you. The power of the pocketbook...

It's actually pretty simple, the publisher must have final say, if not, then the editorial content would easily be at variance with the publisher's aims.

It would be analogous to The Guardian's editors deciding to run Ann Coulter's column...not very bloody likely, the publishers would nix that in the bud.

[davekriss]

13. Take the F

Forget it, it's protected speech. Horrible assignment, btw.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Actually, its a pretty good assignment.

One of the best ways to understand and effectively counter opponent's arguments is to be forced to craft the arguments they would need to make. That way you understand what support there is for your opponent's position - and where the soft spots are so you can hone your arguments (when you are arguing the way you want to) to make your advocacy of the position you really believe in much stronger.

The coveted spot on moot court teams (mock appellate court arguments) is the swing spot. The aspiring attorney has to argue in favor of a proposition in the first round of competition and against the same proposition in the second. The position generally goes to the strongest team member, and also provides the most opportunity for enhancement of advocacy skills.