IndexTinker v. Des Moines Hazelwood v. KuhlmeierArkansas Student Publications ActConclusionReferencesAccording to the History.com website - The First Amendment states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restrict freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In the case of the school district versus school newspaper issue, we are really only interested in the "press" portion of the First Amendment which is very similar to the speech clause of the First Amendment in that the fact that the press has the freedom to express itself through publication, that being said obviously there are limits to “freedom of the press” – which include false or defamatory statements and so on, which we learned in class are called defamation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayFor the increase in the First Amendment, the Har-Ber High School district would have a little more difficulty using the First Amendment to prove they were right in doing what they did because they would have to prove defamation against the newspaper , which I'm not really sure there's enough evidence to do. For the most part, it seems like the consensus was that everyone was just angry about the story, although it seems like everyone also claimed that the story was "extremely divisive and destructive" to the school, I don't think the paper had any intentions to harm the school. The newspaper could more likely use this First Amendment argument because it concerns them more than how they express themselves through what they print. As I see it, the First Amendment newspaper has the advantage in this situation because there was no need to try to cause defamation rather than simply bring an issue to light so people could see what is going on, it appears that the school district of Har-Ber High School simply did not appreciate the fact that they did this and stated that it was disruptive and unnecessary. Near v. Minnesota According to Oyer.org the case Near v. Minnesota was a case involving a small local Minneapolis newspaper by the name of “The Saturday Press”. Writers or people associated with the newspaper named Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with local gangsters (which didn't sit well with them). Public officials subsequently sought a permanent injunction against "The Saturday Press" on the grounds that it violated the Public Nuisance Act, because what the newspaper wrote was considered harmful, scandalous and defamatory. However, the law they provided stated that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd and lascivious" or "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of nuisance and could therefore be enjoined from committing or further maintaining the nuisance. The state Supreme Court had upheld both the temporary injunction and the permanent injunction ultimately issued by the district court. Using the ruling in Near v. Minnesota above to pronounce and motivate, especially the part relating to the law on public nuisance, as in the case above, the newspaper had of tHar-Ber High School had a previous history of publishing things that could be seen as obscene, obscene , lascivious or even harmful, scandalous and defamatory. Theschool district could 100% use this ruling to help them discontinue the newspaper and inhibit their ability to print further content. In this particular case of Near v. Minnesota's decision is very difficult to apply to this case. In the case Near v. Minnesota, it looked like "The Saturday". The press had already violated the public nuisance law in the past, which meant it had a history of printing material that interfered with the way society functions every day: this material could have been derived from stories written by them or it could even have been obscene material. Where it gets complicated is we don't necessarily know the history of what the Har-Ber High School newspaper and what they published and if it qualified as a violation of the public nuisance law, would this case help Har-Ber High School. Tinker v. Des MoinesAccording to the website uscourts.gov, the case Tinker v. Des Moines was a Supreme Court case dealing with a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, where students had staged a silent protest against the Vietnam War. In doing so, the students had planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the war, but the principal found out about this first and told the students that they would be suspended if they wore the armbands. Despite numerous warnings, the students chose to go ahead and wear the armbands and were then suspended. During the suspension, parents of the students involved sued the school for violating their children's free speech rights. A U.S. district court sided with the school, ruling that wearing armbands could actually hinder learning. The students appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals, but lost and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, if the case had not gone to the Supreme Court in The school district could use this same logic to say that the article written by the Har-Ber High School newspaper was disruptive to learning because it caused a stir on campus and in the city. However, the final ruling in this case was at the Supreme Court level in which the Des Moines school district had lost, so it would not be in the best interest of the school district to entrust this case to us when trying to prove their point. Tinker v Des Moines is perhaps one of the strongest arguments the Har-Bar High School paper could use, I say this because just like the armbands which were seen as destructive when worn, the article could also be seen as destructive, however . I think you could argue that the article wasn't really destroying the learning environment, just as the armbands weren't. The High Court agreed that students' free rights should be protected and then even stated: "Students do not lose their constitutional rights at the school gates." Even though these cases involve two different types of issues, they have many similarities that should be examined. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier According to oyer.com “The Spectrum,” which was the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by several students on campus. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school's principal, received proofs of the pages for the May 13 issue and ended up unhappy with some of them. Reynolds felt that two of the articles in the issue were to some extent inappropriate and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheldfrom publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students had taken the case to court. The case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier would be a strong example of how the Har-Bar School District could win, because in the outcome of this case the court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech, which means they can actually monitor and review what is printed for the school newspaper, especially if it is not in line with the school's values. This way the school could still give students some type of free speech, but it would have to be observed and monitored. This case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier wouldn't necessarily be a good reason for the school newspaper to use it while arguing that they should have the right to publish the players' story, because this case sets the precedent that schools can censor what a newspaper says, especially if it's offline with the values ​​of the school, as the school may impose a higher standard of discourse on the newspaper than that of ordinary students who do not frequent newspapers. The Arkansas Student Publications Act This is a very important act for students in Arkansas because it protects them and their freedom of speech. That said, sections 3 and 4 are especially important and are the ones I'll be talking about primarily throughout this topic. The sections read as follows: “Section 3. The student publications policies recognize that students may exercise their right of expression, within the framework outlined in section 2 of this Act. This right includes expression in school-sponsored publications, whether such publications are supported financially by the school or the use of school facilities, or are produced in conjunction with a class, except as provided in Section 4 of this Act. Section 4. Student Publications Policies must recognize that truth, fairness, accuracy, and accountability are essential to the practice of journalism and that the following types of student publications are not authorized: Obscene publications targeting minors, as defined by the State law; Libelous or libelous publications, as defined by state law; Publications that constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, as defined by state law; oPublications that incite students in such a way as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or of violations of legal school regulations or of material and substantial disruption of the orderly functioning of the school. "This law would be kind of pointless for the school to use it against newspapers because the purpose of this law is to protect students who write for newspapers and their freedom of speech. However, after reading it, one section states that any advice school can make their own regulations within this law as long as they are not overbearing. So the only way the school could use this against the newspaper would be if the Har-Bar newspaper broke the regulations set by the school This law would be actually good information to use when arguing against the school district because the The purpose of this law is to protect student organizations like the school newspaper and their freedom of speech Where this could get complicated are the rules and regulations adopted by this school board in relation to all of this. That means that each school board can set the regulatory framework for this law and if the newspaper hasn't specifically violated this framework then there's not much the school board can do just because the.