Responses to Questions

---

Question 1:
What kinds of student Internet communications present the most significant in-school difficulties: cyberbullying, defamation of teachers or other students, voluntary or involuntary breaches or waiver of personal privacy, or something else?
What long-term steps to ameliorate these problems do you favor?

Logan Aimone
Each of the examples listed provides some challenge during this time of generational and societal transition. Because of its ability to cause significant emotional distress to the affected student and his or her peer group and teachers, I believe cyberbullying is likely to present the most difficulty in school. Cyberbullying can include defamation and might begin with a defaming situation that escalates to additional harassment. While some states have passed laws to combat cyberbullying -- many supported by parents (PTA) or minority advocacy (GLBT) groups -- such laws have significant potential to restrict expression and cause unintended consequences.
Related to these issues is the lack of awareness among school staff, parents and young people of the rights and laws related to the Internet. There is a great misconception among educators, for example, in the area of Internet filters and the belief that the installation of filters will shield students from all possible harm. Similarly, such a sheltering attitude also leads schools to adopt policies that require opt-in permission for inclusion of full names and images on a school Web site, even the school newspaper online.
As a new generation of school administrators and parents takes shape, I believe evolving attitudes will reduce some instances of overreaction to the use of the Internet by young people. Education is a solution that can hasten a change in attitudes.

Megan Berkowitz
An educational initiative to teach internet media law and student rights to administrators, teachers, advisers and, most importantly, young journalists would help to clear up the issues surrounding student internet press. It would also enable students to take the greatest advantage possible of the technology that is available to them.

John Bowen
What represents the gravest threat is Internet filtering. Internet filters, while dictated by court decision, really do the following:
• Block far more legal and legitimate information than they are supposed to
• Give schools a false sense of safety when schools ought to be teaching students how to use the Internet and protect themselves against its dangers
• Drive students outside schools to get access to information and ideas they ought to experience inside schools under the guidance of trained educators.
Instead of depending on Internet filters, we ought to teach students and parents how to use the Internet for information-gathering as well as how to separate credible information from that which is incomplete and destructive.  In short, we should teach students how to think for themselves and how to effectively learn by challenging what they are told.

---

Question 2:
How much freedom should public school students have when away from school to communicate, gather and disseminate news, information and opinion on the Internet whether in the form of text messages, instant messages, e-mail, blogs or other forms of communication?

Logan Aimone
Public school students should have the same rights outside school as any other member of the public to gather information, communicate and express opinion -- in print or on the Internet. Of course free expression is not carte blanche to publish whatever comes to mind. The same standards in existence before development of the Internet should apply. Communicating a message, whether through traditional print or modern electronic means, should receive equal protection.
What is troubling today is the expansion of school authority beyond the school grounds into the private lives of students and the simultaneous withdrawal of non-school authority figures (family, church, society) from traditional roles in establishing boundaries for children. It's as if members of society now expect school authorities to be able to punish students for anything they do at any time and to follow through on that ability.

Megan Berkowitz
Public school students should have every right to communicate, gather, and disseminate news and opinions on the internet so long as they break no laws regarding invasion of privacy or defamation. Students should be able to take full advantage of available technology when they are communicating and distributing news.

John Bowen
They should have the same rights guaranteed any citizen, no matter what age. We have to help students of all ages learn how to question authority. Those critical thinking, decision-making and analytical skills are essential to the continuation of a workable and effective democracy.  Having schools act as censors, particularly outside the schoolhouse gate, just does not make sense in a democracy and serves no valid educational mission.

Paul Folkemer
In an attempt to deal with cyberbullying, some administrators have extended the reach of their authority by reacting to the online behavior of students when they are not in school.
Schools have to protect the safety of their students so if an online action threatens either the safety of the school or a member of the school community, administrators should have the authority to take action. Administrators should not have the authority to censor any form of student communication if it does not threaten either the safety of the school or a member of the school community.

Andi Mulshine
Students’ freedom of expression should be limited only by their families and by the legal limitations set in both the civil and criminal courts. But we should be sure that they go onto the Internet armed with the knowledge they need to stay Constitutionally protected as communicators. The law provides remedies for violators of the law. Our students should know the law and the remedies for violators, just as well as they know their algebra.

Jennifer Pascal
Students should be granted the freedom to express their opinions via technology away from school.  Schools can only intervene when off campus speech threatens to cause substantial disruption at school and impact students learning.  It is incumbent upon the school district to draft their own policies and perhaps meet with legislators and local government officials for additional guidance.

Mike Simpson
This is a broadly-worded and complex question.  First, if the question concerns the authority of local law enforcement or juvenile court officials to suppress or punish student Internet speech -- either by bringing criminal charges or instituting delinquency proceedings -- then I believe that public and private school students should enjoy the same First Amendment rights to engage in Internet speech as adults.  

That said, I will assume that the point of the question is to ask how much freedom from censorship or discipline by public school authorities students should enjoy for their Internet speech “when away from school.”  One problem with this question is that it arguably is based on a false premise: namely, that student Internet speech (e.g., speech that is sent or posted from the student’s home computer) occurs “away from school.”  In fact – and this is important for the proper constitutional analysis – a student’s Internet speech can be said to occur in school, even if it is created and “sent” from home.  This is so because, in most instances, students can access Internet speech while at school through their own Blackberries, PDAs, cell phones, and the school’s own computers.  Indeed, one can argue that there is no functional distinction between student Internet speech that originates off campus (but is read in school) and a student’s “underground” newspaper that is printed “away from school” and then disseminated in school by being left in the hallway or lunchroom for students to pick up and read.  In sum, I fear that the courts may not make a distinction between student Internet speech that originates “away from school” and student speech (printed, verbal, or electronic) that occurs in school.  The only difference may be that student Internet speech will be more widely disseminated at school because it is easier and more common for students these days to hit “send” or to forward a URL that to pick up and read a newspaper.

As to the question of how much freedom students should have for Internet speech, I believe that Tinker – properly applied – should be the appropriate standard.  In this regard, the courts should not blindly accept the views of school administrators that student speech “might” or “could” be disruptive or interfere with the rights of others.  Rather, such views must be supported by concrete, demonstrable facts, not mere speculation.  Moreover, the Fraser standard permitting the suppression of “vulgar” or “offensive speech” in a school-sponsored, student assembly should not apply in this circumstance.

Wendy Wallace
Their freedoms should be limited only by laws that apply to all citizens and by limitations imposed on them by their parents (and their cell-phone plans!).

---

Question 3:
How much freedom should student journalists enjoy, whether their work appears in print, online or on-air to report news, provide commentary, criticism or opinion? 

Logan Aimone
Students are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has placed certain limitations on that expression, including time, place and manner as well as additional restrictions when student work is produced as part of a school-sponsored course, student journalists should still enjoy broad freedom of expression without interference or threat of interference from government authorities. I do not distinguish among platforms of delivery when it comes to rights of expression.

Megan Berkowitz
Student journalists ought to be afforded all the rights and freedoms of adult journalists when reporting news and providing commentary, criticism, and opinion. Students must be taught the responsibilities of truth and accuracy in both their news and opinion reporting in all media. Being allowed full freedoms with do just that, unlike being subjected to prior review. That being said, students’ work must be held to standards comparable to those of professional journalists if they expect to be given the same rights.

John Bowen
Student journalists should have the Constitution guarantees a citizen, no matter what age. Because the mission of the school includes helping build better and more effective citizens, we must give them not only the theory but also the practical experience to make decisions, to think critically and to differentiate fact from opinion. We would encourage students to practice responsible journalism as they make final decisions for the content of all student media. That responsibility includes producing thorough, complete and truthful information. Anything less has no valid educational rationale in building responsibility and limits the information a school system’s community gives its citizens, the same citizens who need uncontrolled information to wisely vote and make decisions.

Paul Folkemer
Student expression on the Internet is protected under the First Amendment unless the statements are threatening, libelous, or obscene.

Andi Mulshine
Students who produce good, sound journalism on any medium should enjoy the same free expression rights that professional journalists enjoy. Good journalism is the hallmark of a healthy society, one that constantly questions its leaders and institutions. If we’re in the business of training good citizens, then we must encourage young journalists who will become our curious, questioning adults. Students who face prior review don’t learn these crucial lessons. Instead, they learn to write what those in authority want to read. Or worse, they learn that questioning authority is unacceptable behavior.

Jennifer Pascal
Student journalists should be held to high ethical standards, not unlike a professional journalist.  It should be made clear to them that they have a significant responsibility to exercise fair and accurate reporting.

Mike Simpson
I think Hazelwood was wrongly decided.  Student journalists should enjoy the same freedom of expression as the speaker or pamphleteer on a street corner, subject, however, to the Tinker disruption standard.

Wendy Wallace
Student journalists, under the guidance of a trained adviser, should enjoy the protection of the First Amendment and be able to publish on all platforms.  They are students, and they will make mistakes.  But prior review, prior restraint and censorship detract from, rather than enhance, both the learning experience and the ability of student journalists to serve their school communities.  Student media provide an opportunity for students inside and outside of the journalism program to experience what we hope they will come to expect of professional media – to question authority, give voice to the voiceless and tell the stories that inform and bind together a community.

---

Question 4:
Do administrators and teachers have enough information and training to provide academic instruction about freedom of speech and expression, prevent situations affecting speech from becoming overheated and demonstrate by example the First Amendment values and sensitivities that young people should learn and carry with them?

Logan Aimone
No, they don't. The near-constant report of school administrators or teachers halting publication or distribution, threatening censorship or other means of intimidation all demonstrate there is a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of scholastic media and First Amendment law. A handful of schools, led by enlightened and informed administrators, have been able to cultivate school environments where diverse voices are expressed and divergent opinions are tolerated. When the First Amendment is used as a model not only to teach about one's own expression but also about respect for differences and the right to not express oneself, students, teachers and administrators can reach the pinnacle of education.
Numerous curriculum choices exist to support educators in their quest to teach about the First Amendment. Many of them are quite good and provide valuable experiences and lessons. What perhaps is missing among these is an educational piece for why teaching these principles is important. These ideas are the foundation of democracy and society, and they should also be the foundation for a school's curriculum.

John Bowen
Not nearly enough in many cases, though that is not their fault. Administrative texts are woefully limited not only on communication law but on the educational value of free and responsible student expression. In some areas of the country those who teach journalism or advise student media are not to have training when hired. The school system must bear the overall responsibility for this issue from its beginning. Prior review and restraint by those as untrained as some of the educators they hire is not a viable solution for helping students become better citizens in a democracy.

Paul Folkemer
Administrators and teachers need more training on the First Amendment rights of students.  Organizations like the Five Freedoms Project and the Bill of Rights Organization provide excellent materials and professional development.

Unfortunately, educators have so many responsibilities facing them that issues related to the First Amendment seem to reach the top of the list only in times of crisis.

Andi Mulshine
There is information available if teachers and administrators know where to look.
But putting it in their hands – in lay terms – would help greatly. Teachers in all disciplines should at least receive materials, at best receive instruction in the legal rights of both administration and students concerning expression and intellectual property. On  the student side, these concepts would fit nicely into instruction on copyright, fair use and news and information literacy. Formulating curriculum and lesson plans would be challenging, since the material can be highly technical.

Jennifer Pascal
Currently, it appears that administrators and teachers do not have sufficient information and training to provide adequate instruction on freedom of speech and First Amendment values.  They merely have examples of cyber-bullying incidents that have made national news, but they lack the rule of law to back them up with regard to any policies they implement.  It is difficult to punish children for accusations and criticism they make from their home computers because it is generally considered outside the jurisdiction of schools.  Students need to be taught how to respectfully use technology in positive ways.  Parents and students alike have to be equipped with the skills and resources they need in addressing this issue.  The community as a whole should incorporate anti-bullying messages and strategies in youth-related activities.

Mike Simpson
Journalism teachers and publications advisers generally have training regarding student press freedoms and, equally important, know where to turn for assistance.  Teachers of other subjects are less well informed.  Many school administrators also have a basic knowledge about the degree to which students and school publications staffs can be censored.  More importantly, they typically have access to school district legal counsel for advice and guidance.  At the same time, however, school administrators may be under tremendous pressure from various sources – school board members, parents, school staff, and community leaders – to restrict student expression that may be controversial, unpopular, or put the school district in a bad light.  This, in turn, may lead to an overreaction and to unwarranted censorship decisions.

The question whether “teachers have enough information and training to provide    academic instruction about freedom of speech and expression, … and [to] demonstrate by example the First Amendment values and sensitivities that young people should learn and carry with them” is frankly irrelevant because it is based on a false premise.  The problem is that, after Garcetti v. Ceballos, K – 12 teachers enjoy no free speech rights in the classroom or while performing their other pedagogical functions.  Thus, they have no right or opportunity to “demonstrate by example the First Amendment values and sensitivities that young people should learn and carry with them,” at least while the teachers are in school.  In states where collective bargaining is permitted, one way to circumvent the limitations imposed by Garcetti is for teachers’ unions to negotiate contractual protection for classroom speech.  To date, however, such efforts have been relatively rare.

Wendy Wallace
Sometimes yes.  Often, no.   Collaborations and exercises in understanding, like this conference, can go a long way to address this.

---