http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html
As one can imagine, this article created a lot of controversy over whether censorship should have been evoked by the principle, Trudie Donovan. According to Donovan, who reviewed the article before it was published, she believes her "job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship," claiming she had no authority to censor the article.
Schools spokesman Jay Dillon brought forth court rulings that "students can express their opinions and ideas publicly, privately, orally and in writing. There may be no interference with that, even if a student's opinion is unpopular," an exception being if the writing contains obscenities.
I happen to agree with both Donovan and Dillon. When it comes to high school journalism, very little content should be censored, especially if the student's idea is controversial. No matter how narrow minded and rude Benjamin's gay bashing article was, his speech was protected under the First Amendment.
So if Benjamin's article is allowed to be printed, does that mean an article opposing his views should also be heard? Should the Kell High School newspaper be forced to print an article arguing the other side of the debate?
This is very similar to the case of the Miami Herald v. Tornillo concerning access rights, in which the Herald printed an article criticizing political candidate Pat Tornillo and his policies. Tornillo saw the article and demanded the Herald give him the opportunity to reply. In Florida, the right of reply gives a "political candidate a right to equal space to answer criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper." When the Herald refused to give Tornillo space to reply, he filed suit, saying the right of reply law was in fact, constitutional. The argument that the right of reply law allows the public access to the "whole story, rather than half of it," did not hold up in the Supreme Court. The case eventually went in favor of the Herald which was not forced to print Tornillo's reply, with the idea that the press is more of a check on government and should not be forced to print something it doesn't want to. If the Miami Herald was not forced to print a reply, should the Kell High school newspaper be forced to?
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0241_ZS.html
That appears to be the opinion of much of the public. For example, according to Peter Tatchell of the Press Gazette, the right of reply should be evoked whenever a personal attack is made in the media. Tatchell says "concern about press intrusion is overshadowing the need for a 'right of reply' to redress inaccurate and inflammatory reporting." Tatchell agrees with the neolibertarian view that the right of reply law is the government's way of furthering the public's knowledge and interest with the freedom to hear both sides of an argument. He says, "Instead of one-sidedly cracking down on intrusive reporting, it is time the PCC also backed a swift, legally enforceable right of reply for the victims of press prejudice and falsehood." http://www.petertatchell.net/media/right%20of%20reply.htm Even the National Union of Journalists is showing support for a bill requiring newspapers to allow right of reply. Jeremy Dear of NUJ says, "People who feel they've been misreported or otherwise unfairly treated in the press find it hard to get the matter put right. Most papers fob people off and resist printing corrections." So for some, forcing the right of reply is the government's way of trying to help further the public's freedom of speech.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=889
If so many people feel so strongly about enforcing right of reply, should the Kell High newspaper have been forced to provide an opposing view? Maybe the school should have avoided the controversy altogether and pulled the article before the paper went to print. To these suggestions I say absolutely not. What makes freedom of speech so extraordinary is that is allows anyone and everyone to contribute to the marketplace of ideas, especially with controversial views. If every one-sided argument was pulled before publication, there would be only very thin newspapers and news magazines on the shelves. As much as I disagree with Benjamin's message, I completely support his right to say it, and the newspaper's right not to be forced to print a reply against it.
"Censorship in any form is the enemy of creativity, since it cuts off the life blood of creativity: ideas." -Allan Jenkins
Sources:
Article: Gays Slammed in School Newspaper
http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html
Miame Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0241_ZS.html
Tatchell: What About A Right Of Reply? http://www.petertatchell.net/media/right%20of%20reply.htm
Union Support For Right Of Reply http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=889
3 comments:
The situation at Kell High School bears a striking resemblance to the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case from 1988 [1]. In that case, a high school Principal censored two articles from the school’s newspaper; one concerning divorce and the other teen pregnancy. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the school did in fact have the right to take such action. Since the school funds the publication, they possess the authority to limit the speech in it if it appears that the institution is promoting activities that portray the school in a negative fashion in the community. The fact that neither Trudy Donovan nor Jay Dillon attempted to suppress the article shows that either (a) they are not up to date on their knowledge of the First Amendment as it pertains to a high school setting or (b) they did not want to spark any more controversy that the article itself had already created.
Yes, I agree that Thomas Benjamin has the right to express his opinions on homosexuals, but just not through the medium of the school newspaper. If he were to, for instance, write his editorial on his own personal blog (not affiliated with the school), then there would be no backlash as to whether the medium of expression was appropriate. This fact has been substantiated by a number of court cases [2].
Concerning the right of reply, I believe that one should most definitely have that right. Not only should one have the right to defend themselves from verbal attacks, but the public should have the means to view both sides of an issue in order to make an enlightened decision. Granted, a reply in the exact medium in which the attack was presented is probably not possible (i.e. the News Gazette does not have the time and paper space to print a rebuttal to every editorial). Yet there still exists many other mediums in which a reply can be made (namely the Internet).
1: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html
2: http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/activity.html (see the first 4 cases)
I also agree that the student should be allowed his right to publish his anit-gay article, although, I am very surprised that it was published. At my school subjects of that matter were taboo, so I appreciate that these students are actually allowed thier freedom of speech. But in this case I have to side with the neo-liberals. I feel that, since it was a school newspaper, a rebuttle article should have been issued. Since the nature of a school is to help young kids develop adult opions, I feel like they are almost obligated to present both sides. A school is a place for learning and broadening one's point-of-view, so if they only get the opportunity to read the anti-gay article, they are not getting all the information. Having both points of view adds to their marketplace of ideas, and they might be able to make a better decision on where they stand if they see both ends of the spectrum.
Also, the school, which I am assuming is public, does not hold the "property" rights that would allow them to prevent a rebuttle arguement. Unlike in Miami v Tornillo, the school is government owned and ultimately property of the tax payers. Since it is a public entity they don't hold the same rights a private corporation would, and should allow a rebuttle article.
I agree that the article should not be taken out of the paper due to its controversial content. But I would understand the argument of the school to protect the "receiver" in this case from the ignorant views of a student that could bring forth a negative outcome to the school. I am also surprised that it was not pulled because as Kelly stated as well this type of article would have never made it into my school's publication. However, the school paper cannot be forced by the government to allow a reply. By allowing the government to demand topics to be written about in the articles of the press is just as harmful to the first amendment as to allow the government to take out articles they disagree with whenever they choose. Giving the government the free will of power over the press would substantially harm the freedom of speech in this country. No longer would we be guaranteed the ability to express our opinion, or to not express the opinion of the opposing arguement.
Post a Comment