RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Fucking fascism is what it is!

http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1772

CALIFORNIA — A high school newspaper in Redding is facing the chopping block after students chose to publish a photo of a burning flag and an editorial about freedom of expression in the paper's last issue of the school year.


Shasta High School Principal Milan Woollard said the photo and editorial cemented his decision to eliminate the paper next school year, a decision he said he already was considering due to budget constraints, according to the Redding Record Searchlight, a local newspaper.


"The paper's done," Woollard told the Record Searchlight. "There is not going to be a school newspaper next year."


Woollard called the photo and editorial embarrassing. Shasta Union High School District Superintendent Mike Stuart, a Vietnam veteran, said he finds the photo and editorial offensive. But he said he understands the need for a school newspaper and is trying to find an alternate way to keep the paper at Shasta.


"It may not be print, we may do it online," Stuart told the Student Press Law Center. "We'll see if there's ways to do it without the cost."


California law prohibits censorship except for material that is obscene, libelous or likely to incite students to break laws or disrupt the school. State law also bars administrators from retaliation based on student speech.


"If the subject matter of paper was something they considered in their decision, then the entire decision is in violation of state law, no matter how many other reasons they may have considered," said Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate with the Student Press Law Center. "There is no legal protection for a 'little bit' of censorship, or a decision that is 'only slightly' in violation of student rights."


The editorial, written by Connor Kennedy, discussed freedom of expression, specifically flag burning.


"Those who would assume that the act of burning the flag is unpatriotic, could not be more mistaken," Kennedy wrote. "The day an American cannot burn the flag, the day he cannot denounce his country, is the day America is no longer free."


Kennedy, who graduated last week, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he chose the topic because they had recently discussed flag burning in his American government class.


"I'm deeply saddened, and I find it terribly ironic a high school newspaper would be shut down for exercising free speech — particularly when the curriculum being taught was that this was free speech," Kennedy told the AP.


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson that a demonstrator who burned an American flag could not be criminally prosecuted because his act was protected speech under the First Amendment.


Stuart said he found the editorial patronizing toward veterans and that although the ideas Kennedy referred to had merit under the First Amendment, he felt the article, and its timing, were self-indulgent.


"I would've felt better about it if it had run a month ago so the student who wrote it would have had to defend his editorial to the students and the community," Stuart said. "It's kind of like he stuck it to the school on the way out. "

I've been to Redding and Red Bluff. My dad lives up around there.

You may as well be in Bumfuck Arkansas and not in anything remotely resembling California.

Highlight of my trip up there was the yearly fucking Rodeo that all the chili stained rubes get all excited over and is televised in the local media.

how is it fascist to stop funding something you don't agree with? the school was already considering shutting the paper down, this just cemented their decision. the school is under no obligation to set funds aside for this. if the students want their paper, they should fund it. it's not as if the administration is getting in the way of them doing an online paper. freedom of speech is "say what you want, if I don't like it I don't have to hear it", not "say what you want, if I don't like it I should still pay for it".

A publisher has a right to determine content. With that in mind, it would seem that, if a school acts as a publisher, it has the same right. And, in fact:

• Summing up a significant, if not prevalent, view of the relationship between school newspapers and officials was the comment of a teacher described by the Student Press Law Center as a mentor for the Monona Grove editors: “A school newspaper is not public speech any more than classroom conversation is public speech. This is the principal’s paper — not the students’ paper — and he has every right to decide what goes into it.”

Did you read the entire passage?

First off, its not the principal's paper. Student run newspapers in High schools are majority funded through ad sales and fundraisers. All the public taxpayers pay for are teacher salary and utillites of the classroom. The principal pays for nothing. The hazelwood case says that a principal can only censor obscene, libelous, or inciteful material or material that contradicts the school systems beliefs. The basic belief of the school system should be educational and informative, in other words inform of facts only. Since flag burning is constitutionally protected, it should not be condemned by a school adminstrator, who is funded by taxes and should not take sides in political issues.

Secondly

"At the high school level, especially, we must recognize that while limits on student expression may be necessary, if the restrictions we impose are too harsh we undermine student commitment to rights fundamental to democracy and essential to individual achievement. "

You're arguing your idea of what the policy should be. I was pointing out what the law generally is.

And you quoted a teacher's argument.

I also mentioned the Hazelwood case, which is the most recent decider in other school press issues. And i still don't see how flag burning goes against school policy.

But the teacher's statement was an essentially accurate summation of the current state of the law, which is why I posted it.

As for Hazelwood, in that case the SCotUS held that the decision to prohibit the publishing of certain articles in a student newspaper does NOT violate the students' First Amendment right.

Provided that the articles are obscene, libelous, prone to start a riot or containing material that violates the school's belief system

All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void - marbury vs madison

That seems to be the California statute, not the Federal.

Also, there isn't a case of censorship here. The paper with the 'offending' editorial went out. The paper was cut because of budget, which the principal is in charge of. The article just made up the principal's mind.

Oh, how cute. Someone's taken their freshman year "introduction to American law" class and now thinks he's Alan Dershowitz.

And? Various schools do have newspaper's considered by law public forums.

And many are not. You have yet to prove fascism.

It actually requires very little public funding to run a newspaper. A majority comes from private ad sales and fundraising. Were the students to raise the needed funding, based on the principals comments i doubt he would allow them to continue regardless of funding. Funding is the excuse. Ofcourse he may be right about funding based on the sheer failure of no child left behind.

Ah, of course. It's all really "Bush's Fault"TM

Its Fascism for a Principal to pull to punish others for something he disagrees with that is protected by the constitution.

No, you see Bush just supported the law; Congress passed it. Congress is responsible for most of America's problems, Bush has relatively little power when compared to Congress

1. You cannot prove the principal's motives.

2. Hazelwood said that student newspapers aren't always afforded the same rights as regular newspapers.

And 'No Child Left Behind' is bullshit.

1. true; but i've dealt with a similar fascist before
2.provided that they aren't public forums

Agreed there!


NCLB Basketball edition:

1. All teams must advance to the Sweet 16, and all will win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.


2. All kids will be expected to have the same basketball skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in basketball, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY BASKETBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.


3. Talented players will be asked to practice on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in basketball, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like basketball.


4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th and 11th games.


5. This will create a New Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.

if those kids hate their country so much, they deserved to have their paper shut down....

Hey BSAMS, I'll remind you of your statement come November when barack wins. You see, criticizing the president is "hating your country" as well by your logic.

But your right, no one in Amuricah sould be allowed to criticize Amuricah without having their Constitutional rights taken away. The Federalists had it right when they passed th Alien and Sedition Acts, as did Wilson's congress when they passed the Sedition Act of 1918, and Abbie Lincoln when he suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. How dare those jerks criticize the government! The government is always right! We should open up gulags and lock the political dissidents and fags up. And then the rest will fall in line! Eventually everyone will love Amuricah again, and we won't even need a Constitution anymore.

No, but burning the country's flag is a pretty good indicator of hating the country.

Or it could be an indicater that they think the flag is gaudy.

HARDCORE all the way man. I mean, you could respond but you just figure, nah, I'm too busy watching wrestling so i'll just defend muh statement with a motie! Hardcore all the way!

it's true!

An Obama emoticon? Don't give em any ideas!

Thinking our flag is gaudy is also a pretty good indication of hating America.

i'd rather have a crossdresser as president than a muslim terrorist.

Lets bring back the sedition act of 1918, made it a crime to speak unfavorably of the flag, "an inanimate object"

I can imagine it now with that gay home decorator dude. "I'm hot that flag is not; NO! Don't arrest me!"

Seriously, if you can't criticize the country, then your in a sucky country.

I'd rather have Ron Paul, but the corporate owned media said no.

Oh and Warren Harding was a crossdresser.

Ron Paul would have been the best candidate. see i have taught you something.

whomod fucks little boys.