In most Washington State journalism classrooms, staffs are constantly learning about publishing pitfalls. That is how the JagWire staff new that what they published was legal under judicial precedent, and that is why the school district was never actually sued. Yes, the parties did demand a settlement, but that settlement was not granted.

Ditto!! I couldn't agree more.

Why does what I want merit more weight than what you want? Who gets to decide?
Our country was founded on the principles of inalienable rights of freedom,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fertile grounds of this idealism have morphed over a couple hundred years to allow and produce expressions of disparate expectations, beliefs and a personal sense of center. Further, we are so fractured from one another, we barely share agreement on simple terms, let alone acknowledge understanding of how one idea affects another (logic) and the further effects of implication and repercussion (foresight).
Inevitably, we will become a nation governed by laws exclusively. When we fail to personally conduct ourselves with virtue and morality, what is left to govern a society? Law alone.
Perhaps the juvenile journalists in the Puyallup School District should plan several articles to promote understanding important things like reason, logic, philosophy, and virtue, rather than serve as public servant shock jocks or invoking angst and rage for the sake of their own power trip, in the name of free speech.
Reason alone produces an intuitive understanding that 1)since the school district allowed untethered expression of juveniles, 2)the end results produced 4 legal suits against the district with a steep price tag of $320,000.00. Because minors were exploited ? OR rather, found a way to exploit the school district?
Shame on all! Oops is that a lack of virtue in me if is say that? Or a lack of virute in the parties involved? Who can say? Guess we better appeal to the law.

I completely agree.

The Supreme Court has issued several rulings that allow limitations of 1st Amendment rights in schools.

Hazelwood is the main one, and Puyallup publications have operated for decades in practice as a Public Forum. The next case that is not specifically tied to newspapers, but clearly pertains to student speech is Tinker vs. Des Moines, where students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. Next up, Bethel vs. Frazier for an ASB assembly... this says that students may not disrupt the school process.
Let me ask you, who is disrupting the school process now by instituting a retaliatory and oppressive regulation?

They should be able to hold public officials accountable, just as the general public does.
In the "real world" they should know that they have the right to stand up for what is right. For example, the recent bailout scandal. Or how about Big Tobacco? Yes, they SHOULD say what they really feel, understanding what the consequences may be. That may be the unemployment line, but more likely it will be a promotion to somewhere better and more reputable.

Journalists are journalists.
Tacking "student" onto the front of the title does not change that.
The first amendment guarantees the free reign that you don't think should be allowed. Student or adult, you are still a citizen and guaranteed this right under the constitution.
What you just said is that fully schooled adults make mistakes too.
Why is it alright for an adult to make mistakes and carry on with their rights, but not students?
These are the people who will one day be writing for the papers you trust, like the Tribune.
I would think that you'd want them to know how to work for a paper that is accountable for itself.

Free reign? Heck no. Guided? Heck yes. The school paper qualifies as an elective, correct? So it is a class, not a professional publication. In a class students learn. After learning they can apply it to a professional career. If people think the students should be handed over the reigns to the paper unbridled then they don't know kids or the school setting. I find it hilarious the people trying to make this a constitutional issue! Nice try. :) This is a class and any class run by the teacher has parameters. Second, the supreme court has ruled on this matter and it is not in favor of the students.

Also, as far as this not being a constitutional matter, it was the Tinker case where the supreme court ruled that students "Do not check their rights in at the school house door".

Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of student free speech rights. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student's sexual innuendo–laden speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Fraser qualified Tinker in making an exception for "indecent" speech. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate, for legitimate educational reasons, the content of non-forum, school-sponsored newspapers, also limits Tinker's application. The Court in Hazelwood clarified that both Fraser and Hazelwood were decided under the doctrine of Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association. Such a distinction keeps undisturbed the Material Disruption doctrine of Tinker, while deciding certain student free speech cases under the Nonpublic Forum doctrine of Perry. In Morse v. Frederick, the Court held that schools may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school-sponsored event, even those events occurring off school grounds, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

It seems clear to me that Tinker was not written specifically for school papers, but for students to be able to speak their mind. Subsequent cases show that restriction of student speech is ok. So, no it is not a matter of freedom of speech. Nice try.

Even if the rulings state that free speech can be regulated within schools, it is still a matter of free speech. That doesn't change.
And it doesn't mean that it's any more okay, just because that's been the ruling so far.
Supreme court opinions can change over time.

That post didn't really make sense as you are saying that A) free speech and be regulated in schools but B) it is still a matter of free speech. That sounds contradictory. Can't have it both ways.

No, what I'm saying is that even if you think it should be regulated, it's still free speech that's being regulated. It's a matter of free speech being regulated, and is therefore, still a matter of free speech.
I hope I phrased it better that time.

In addition to the First Amendment, the following guidelines exist - specific to student expression and Washington state:
Washington State Constitution
ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

Washington Administrative Code
WAC 392-400-215
Student rights. (2) All students possess the constitutional right to freedom of speech and press, the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government and its representatives for a redress of grievances, the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and to have their schools free from sectarian control or influence, subject to reasonable limitations upon the time, place, and manner of exercising such right.

Also, Hazelwood would not apply here since these publications have operated as public forums for decades! The District administration is attempting to change that, clearly, but the archives show otherwise.

Sorry, but I downloaded the ACLU's version of student rights for students in Washington State and it states that in the tinker case students have the right to freedom of speech as long as it does not cause a "material or substantial disruption" to class or school activities. I'd say this current fiasco applies. The guide also states that yes students do not check their rights at the door but their speech can be restricted even though when out of school it wouldn't.

..."as it does not cause a "material or substantial disruption" to class or school activities. I'd say this current fiasco applies" ...?

The one-time, poor choice issue or the Regulation that is threatening student speech rights? Which is causing more disruption?

By the way, I was quoting directly from the Washington State Constitution and the Washington Administrative Code for student rights... where does the ACLU's "interpretation" matter here?

WAC 132F-121-020 Agency filings affecting this section
Student rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.

(1) Preamble. As members of the academic community, students are encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in an independent search for truth. Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn depends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus, and in the larger community. Students should exercise their freedom with responsibility. The responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conducive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the district community.

(2) Classroom freedom of expression. The district recognizes the rights of students to freedom of discussion and free expression of views. However, students' rights of classroom expression do not include expressions or conduct which create a hostile educational environment or violate chapter 49.60 RCW or other applicable law. It is the responsibility of the instructor to insure and encourage the realization not only of the fact but of the spirit of free inquiry. Instructors have the responsibility to maintain order, but this authority shall not be used to inhibit the expression of views contrary to their own. Students have the right to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they cannot do so in a disruptive manner that interferes with the educational process. Students are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled. It also is the responsibility of the student to comply with the instructor's efforts to assure freedom of expression and to maintain order.

There, I posted more of the WAC so that we are looking at the same information. In here it states that freedom of speech does not apply if it creates a disruption. I'm not saying the paper can't exist, but that this WAC clearly states that there are restrictions to the freedom of speech in school. School is not the same as the adult world, it just isn't.

that there are not or should not be restrictions; I said that administrators hire professional, educated advisers who should be allowed to do their jobs without fear of administrative, in this case district retaliation.

Administrators who are not protected by a union should also be protected and not have to fear retaliatory measures, which ultimately is what this Regulation sets up. Are we to give such a large raise to Dr. Apostle so that he can delegate such extra duties to his administrative team, and think that it will not kill student expression as such actions of prior review did in Everett?

WAC 132F-121-040 Agency filings affecting this section
Journalistic freedom and responsibility.

(1) A primary purpose of student publications is to promote free and responsible discussion of campus and community issues.

(2) Each campus president shall establish a board of publications composed of representatives of students, faculty, and staff. This board shall serve as the publisher of all student publications and shall have general authority over them.

(3) The board of publications may adopt, subject to modification by the campus president, such journalistic, editorial, and advertising guidelines as it deems appropriate to govern student publications. Unless specifically stated by the board and approved by the campus president otherwise, these guidelines shall be deemed to include all applicable federal and state laws, all district rules, policies and procedures, and relevant codes of journalistic, editorial and advertising ethics and practices as adopted by national trade and professional organizations, including but not limited to the Statement of Principles as adopted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

(4) Student newspapers shall be free of censorship. However, student newspapers and other student publications shall follow the board's guidelines as described above. Student editors shall be free to develop their own editorial policies within these guidelines.

After reading through this is states that the campus president (ASB I presume) and faculty comprise a board that can develop and institute guidelines. Clearly, unfettered free speech is not a reality.

The ASB is how the student publications pay for their publications. Through the sale of advertising they pay for the publication. They are NOT asking for donations from the District to pay so that they may remain a public forum; this in one of the ways that they have remained true to a "student publication" not a Public Relations tool for the Communications department of the district.

They have had guidelines, the Public Forum policy, on which they have operated for years without incident. Now, because of ONE, literally one incident that caused a stir, that qualifies the need for such an extremely controlling policy? Please, answer this question. Why do you feel that such a Regulation is suddenly necessary, after decades of nationally award winning publications (Society of Professional Journalists, Columbia Scholastic Press Association, Quill, National Journalism Education Association, National Scholastic Press Association, the list goes on...) What exactly merits such an extreme measure? Are students going to suddenly, after this one issue, change the way they have operated in such a responsible manner in the past?

Now there are the conspiracy groups out there who would love to try and convince you the "man" is out to get you, but that is simply not true. If the newspaper has been running great like you say, and your administrator has been supportive, then it stands to reason the only change will be procedural. I would rather have them take a look to make sure it isn't going to cost taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation before it goes to print. I ask, was it really necessary to print those student names? Was it really? Nope. Just use the same cop out professional journalist use, I used an "anonymous source." That way people would be more comfortable sharing informaiton to the reporter. That should be journalism 101. Sources like these are usually confidential. So replay, this story comes across the principals desk and they say the story has serious merit, but I don't think the names should be in there (permission or not) can we make a change? Are you telling me that is a lot to ask, that the students would be unwilling to compromise? Consider the consequences of including those names. If you are in high school then you know exactly what I am talking about. Kids are not always nice, in fact they can be the cruelest people out there in the wrong situations. Seems like poor judgement to include names, not necessary at all.

This was a measure that was considered and discussed with journalism advisers, however, anonymous quotes take away from credibility. It is easy to make up an anonymous quote. How would anyone ever know?
I know it always makes me unsure of the information I'm getting.

In a school setting I think if it is controversial the only way is anonymous as you will lose sources rather quickly. Read the stories in the news, and find out how may do not cite the source. Sources don't usually want to be singled out. Comes with the profession.

for so many consecutive years - don't forget, I said DECADES. You're citing one situation with one publication and one incident, again and again. Can you call upon any other that warrants or merits this? Again, does one incident merit such a strongly worded Regulation?
I do not see you specifying what the actual Regulation calls for... and if enforced, it would literally kill student publications in Puyallup and set precedent for many other districts across the nation. This is why it is not okay.
It's the "If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump out. But if you place a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will boil to death." This may be an inflation analogy, but it applies very well to the topic of slowly killing student speech rights in Puyallup by having the administrators and advisers, for fear of losing their jobs, censor. Oh, and even better, the students will censor themselves for fear of their advisers and administrators losing their jobs - oh, the current regulation has already accomplished this, hasn't it?

No, I'm not saying that students won't compromise, but will the district officials? Such a Regulation has been absolutely unnecessary in previous years and how many publications? Why now? It is NOT as Cliff Foster says to put us in line with policy, as the publications and the precedent set have proven otherwise. We are a public forum for student expression, and should remain this way.

It will only scare the editors if people like you keep freaking them out. Present this as it is, a precaution and not as a "big brother" looking over your shoulder. Kill student publications is a journalistic hyperbole that is so overblown it is myth. The sky is falling the sky is falling. We can play analogy all day long. It scares the crap out of me that the students do not feel any need for accountability. This regulation is merely a check on what is going on. YOU totally ignored the premise of my post (so I guess that makes you even closer to be a professional journalist lol). If it is running great and the only change is for the principal to take a look at it then there shouldn't be much change at all. It is only your perception that there will be change, that is called high school drama. BTW, it only takes once in America to create new laws, do a little research and I'm sure you will find this to be true.

Are you reading the Regulation, not the policy that is posted here by the Tribune? They've posted 3220, but not 3220R the Regulation. People who turn their heads will not be laughing the first time a lawsuit is aimed at them for censoring student speech, when the students should be responsible and accountable. Now, because of the Regulation, the district is, clearly - they are placing themselves there:
http://www.puyallup.k12.wa.us/ourdistrict/policies/3000PDF/3220RFreedomOfExpression.pdf

School Sponsored Student Publications and Productions
... The principal or designee will review copies prior to its
publication and the principal may edit, remove or revise content to ensure compliance with this regulation or for any valid pedagogical reasons. Such copy will be returned to the student editors within twenty-four (24) hours after it has been submitted for review, but a failure to meet this deadline will be deemed disapproval.
...

...Although the District believes that students should be encouraged to exercise good judgment in the content of the student publication program or in student productions, such expressive writing and activities must be in keeping with the school's instructional mission and values, and recognition that school sponsored student publications and productions are not an open forum for first amendment expression, but rather publicly funded instructional activities of
the school district, subject to the control of the Board of Directors and District administration. ...

I must say that it's an embarrassment that First Amendment isn't even capitalized in the policy. That aside. One incident does not merit such a Regulation, and how can the district suddenly change the policy and claim it's not a public forum, when in fact, it has operated as one for years without this intervention?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What I'm really trying to say is that these aren't small children. They are young adults capable of making competent decisions. And they clearly have the ability to make waves about issues or no one would be here discussing this. I don't think it is up to one person to decide wether the readership gets to be informed of the issue in question. The adviser is already in place guiding. That's his or her job. That's what they pay him/her for.

Able to make competent decisions? I'm sure there are, but there are also students who are not. Most guys don't make good choices until about 30 lol (sarcastic). Bottom line this is a class that is run by the advisor, this is not a professional publication. This is a learning experience, not a polished product.

I do understand this opinion. However, I can't stand to see award winning publications such as the one in the PSD affected by this. The issues in question that led up to this were recognized by the journalism community as sound. Th Oral Sex issue of JagWire won first in the state competition. Those opinions are those of professional and respected journalists. These people, including those at the student press law center have attended school board meetings and expressed their distaste and distress for the new policy.

Also, the student leaders of the class are chosen by the adviser and in all honesty, tend to be some of the most informed and intelligent students in the schools. They take their jobs seriously and while it's true that I can't speak for every student or male below the age of 30, I also can't speak for all the males above 30 and college graduates that run professional papers.

After you've seen the "journalistic restraint" these kids demonstrate.

See, the problem is this- you're assuming that these kids should have the "freedom" to say absolutely ANYTHING, and you try to use comparisons that might fit. Except that our country DOES have it's own version of the "school administrator" that would review the paper. For example, the FCC monitors broadcasts. If you were to print something libelous, you would also open yourself to consequences from that libel. You could find yourself shut down by the FCC and sued by the person you were slandering.

Obviously we can't have the FCC wandering around in schools, or lawsuits everywhere by every student, so the administrators take upon themselves the responsibility to ensure that the kids aren't printing that sort of thing in their newspapers.

If you're referring to the Oral Sex issue of JagWire and the Sex issue of the Commoner, I have seen. And I believe that the issues were covered in a very mature and informative manner. Have you read all the articles yourself>

So isn't there a way to make the students accountable for any mistakes they make?
If a student publication prints libel, it's true, the district and the school board shouldn't have to suffer for it.
So isn't it possible to make the students themselves liable?
Personal accountability.

... An Open Public Forum. This is the key to holding the students responsible, not the administrators or the school or the district. This Regulation does the exact opposite and will claim that the District is now ultimately responsible for ALL published content. So, from controversial Planned Parenthood ads to a boring Homecoming story, the district is now officially responsible - why should the students care? They now have no accountability, and all the more reason to try and "pull one over" on the district for being oppressed.

So isn't there a way to make the students accountable for any mistakes they make?
If a student publication prints libel, it's true, the district and the school board shouldn't have to suffer for it.
So isn't it possible to make the students themselves liable?
Personal accountability.

If the student is under 18 they cannot be held liable for any monetary suits, such is the issue with districts being sued. Suing a district is, usually, a bad result for all. One, it takes away money from the schools for a start.

to the fact that it shouldn't have been a monetary suit to begin with.

So when the teacher is opposed to prior review, where do we go from there? Is the district's opinion the only one that counts?

Yes it is the districts opinion that counts as this is a class. This is not a case of rights not being protected.

Open Public Forum for decades, which creates a non-Hazelwood environment. School administrators will not be able to censor simply based on fear of reaction. The Tinker case clearly states that students do not "check their rights at the schoolhouse door" and Hazelwood clearly spells out the public forum necessity to avoid this very type of regulation to squelch student speech.

But it is a class, period. Make it not a class and maybe you have something. If a teacher does not have the final say in a classroom then something isn't right. Make it an afterschool activity only and then there is definitely room to continue with your ideas, but if it is in the classroom I don't think so.