Educational curriculum - High School Broadcast Journalism

hsbj.org

Educational curriculum - High School Broadcast Journalism

thereof or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the PRESS; or the rightFREEDOMIt looks good on you.The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutionguarantees that your thoughts, speech, and expressionof beliefs can be displayed proudly and boldly.The First Amendment – Keep It Strong!T h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n tCurriculum and Teaching Guidefor 45 Words of FreedomMade possible by the Illinois Press Association Foundation and Copley First Amendment Centerwww.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com


Page 445 WORDS OF FREEDOMNot all speech is protectedThe freedomsof the FirstAmendment arenot absolute. Every righthas certain limitations.It is up to the courts toweigh one person’srights against another’s,and individual rightsagainst what is best forsociety. Whenever rightsseem to conflict, thecourts attempt to honorthe spirit of the FirstAmendment and achievea proper balance.The courts have identifiednine categories ofspeech not protected bythe First Amendment:(1) ObscenityThe statement that“beauty is in the eye ofthe beholder” poses thedilemma that courts havewrestled with in establishinga definition ofobscenity that will promoteconsistent interpretationby judges.The Supreme Courthas held that material isobscene if it “appeals toa prurient interest in sex”by portraying “sexualconduct in a patentlyoffensive way.”(2) DefamationThe First Amendmentdoes not protect someonewho “defames” a personby attacking the individual’sgood name by slanderor libel.A person suing for defamationmust prove four things:• Publication. Thestatement must havebeen communicated tosomeone other than theperson it was about.• Identification.The statementmust identifythe personclaimingtobelibeled.• Harm.The statementmustDrawing the lineCourts of differentjurisdictions don’talways agree aboutwhere todraw theline ofprotectedspeech.JusticeOliverWendellHolmesHolmes Jr. (1841-1935)was a strong advocatetoharm the person’sreputation in theeyes of the community.• Fault. It must beproven that the defendantwas at fault for publishingthe statement.Truth is the best defenseagainst defamation.(3) Expression intendedand likely to incite imminentlawless actionIn its 1969 Brandenburgv. Ohio ruling, theSupreme Court said thatpeople may talk aboutresorting to violence. Butif their words are directlylinked to lawless actionabout to happen, or if thewords help cause action,the speaker loses FirstAmendment protection.(4) Fighting wordsWhen a person usesof the First Amendmentwho favored freedomover suppression infringe cases.Holmes wrote thatthe ultimate gooddesired is betterreached by free trade inideas, that “the best testof truth is the power ofthe thought to get itselfaccepted in the competitionof the market. ...”be left alone is“ The rightthewordsso offensiveand inflammatorythat they distrupt thepeace by provoking theperson addressed to actsof violence, the speakeris not protected by theFirst Amendment.If words (apart fromthe content of the ideasthey conveyed) are likelyto shock passersby andincite them to commitunlawful acts, the speakeris not protected.(5) Unwarrantedinvasion of privacy“The right to be letalone is indeed the beginningof all freedoms,”wrote Justice William O.Douglas.The Learner Will...❐ List nine categories ofunprotected speech❐ Match categories ofunprotected speech with examples.❐ Explain one quotation ofOliver Wendall Holmes Jr.❐ Provide a specific example of“conflicting rights.”beginning of allfreedoms. ”Privacy law includes fourdifferent kinds of complaints:• Public disclosure ofprivate and embarrassingfacts. Does the informationlack legitimatepublic concern?• False light.Does the informationunflatter-inglyportray aperson assomething thathe or she is not?• Intrusion. Was theinformation obtained ina way that infringed upona person’s reasonable expectationfor privacy?• Misappropriation.Was the information anunauthorized use of aperson’s name, likeness,voice or endorsement topromote the sale of acommercial product orservice?(6) Deceptive or misleadingadvertisementsor those for illegalproducts or servicesAdvertising that misleadsa reasonable consumer(buyer) by misrepresentingor omitting importantinformation isnot protected by the FirstAmendment. Advertisingfor illegal products orservices is also subject togovernment penalties.The government mayGoals: The Parameters of Freedom❐ Provide a specific example to illustratethat First Amendment rights are notabsolute.❐ Paraphrase “...appeals to a prurientinterest in sex” by portraying “sexual conductin a patently offensive way.”❐ Create a specific example to illustrata right that consumers have under theFirst Amendment.regulate advertising insome situations to protectconsumers.(7) Clear and immediatethreats to nationalsecurityEvery nation has theright to suppress speechthat would pose a gravethreat to national security.This is especially trueduring times of war.People who disclosevital secrets or say thingsthat can help the enemycan be punished. Thegovernment can censorinformation that wouldhelp the enemy.However, the courtshave said that circumstancesshould be extremeif First Amendmentrights are to be curtailed.(8) Copyright violationsPeople who work withwords and other meansof expression have theright to have their workprotected for their exclusiveuse. Others may notcopy their material forunauthorized use exceptin such manner as thelaw allows.(9) Expression onschool grounds thatcauses a material andsubstantial disruptionof school activitiesSchool officials maysuppress student speechin school if they can providecompelling evidencethat the speechwould result in imminentor immediate physicaldisruption or the commissionof unlawful acts.❐ List the fourt htings needed toprove defamation.❐ List the four different kinds of privacycomplaints.❐ Give an example of speechthat would likely cause “imminent orimmediate physical disruption or thecommission of unlawful acts” in school.


DEFINING MOMENTSTU.S. judicial system is chargedwith defining the 45 words of theFirst Amendment as they apply toreal life situations. Judges must balancethe First Amendment’s freedoms withother factors that protect the rights ofcitizens and the welfare of society. It is a delicatetask — sometimes rights come into conflict.For example, young people have a right toattend school in a safe environment, free fromdisruption. But what happens when school officialsfear that a student’s exercise of free speechwill cause a disruption?The court cases which follow are a sample ofthose on First Amendment issues. They are presentedto give you an idea of the kind of topicsand challenges that judges deal with every year.By entering them on an Internet search engine,you can access more details about each case,including the complete court opinions.Tinker v. Des Moines Board ofEducation 393 U.S. 503 (1969)Thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinkerand two other students wore black armbands toschool in protest of the Vietnam War. Schoolofficials had quickly adopted policy that prohibitedstudents from wearing armbands when theygot advanced warning of the planned protest.Officials said they wanted to avoid disruption.When the students refused to remove theirarmbands they were suspended and sent home.Mary Beth challenged the suspension in courtas a violation of her First Amendment rights.The U.S. Supreme Court reversed lower courtdecisions and ruled: “First Amendment rights,applied in the light of the special characteristicsof the school environment, are available toteachers and students. It can hardly be arguedthat either students or teachers shed their constitutionalrights to freedom of speech or expressionat the schoolhouse gate.”The Court established four criteria for identifyingunprotected student speech. Expression:• Must not be libelous.• Must not be obscene.• Must not create a clear and substantial disruptionin the school.• Must not otherwise invade the rights of others.Hazelwood School District v.Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988)In the spring of 1983, the Spectrumstudent newspaper at Hazelwood East HighSchool near St. Louis, Mo., was censored by theprincipal, who objected to two articles on divorceand teenage pregnancy. The principal saidthe stories were too sensitive and unsuitable forGoals: InterpretationThe Learner Will...❐ Research one of the cases and write a 500-word report on thebackground, legal questions, decision and opinion of the court.❐ Be able to answer questions about the cited cases.❐ Identify which of the five freedoms of the First Amendment isrelevant to each case.45 WORDS OF FREEDOM Page 5Courts interpret theFirst Amendmentimmature audiences.By a 5-to-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court reversedthe court of appeals and upheld theschool’s censorship. While reaffirming Tinker,the Court established a higher standard underHazelwood with two new considerations:(1) Can school officials show they have avalid educational purpose for the censorship andthat the censorship is not intended to silence aparticular viewpoint they disagree with or that isunpopular? (If not, the Tinker standard applies.)(2) Has the publication, either by school policyor practice, been opened up as a “publicforum” or “forum for student expression” wherestudents have been given the authority to makethe content decisions? (If it has, the Tinker standardapplies.)New York Times v. Sullivan376 U.S. 254 (1964)Thousands of college students werearrested for “sit-in” demonstrations protestinglunch-counter segregation in Greensboro, N.C.The New York Times published a full-pageadvertisement on March 29, 1960, calling fordonations to help pay legal expenses of thejailed students and their famous supporter, Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.The ad noted other cities where “sit-in”demonstrations were held, and it accused policeof brutality during a Montgomery, Ala., protest.The ad contained some minor factual errors, andthe Montegomery police commissioner decidedto sue the Times for libel.He was awarded $500,000 in a district court,but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision,stating that the United States has “a profoundnational commitment to the principal thatdebate on public issues should be uninhibited,robust, and wide-open.”Miller v. California413 U.S. 15 (1973)Marvin Miller was convicted of violatinga state obscenity law after he mailedbrochures that contained sexually illicit photographsand advertised provocative “sex” books.He claimed his brochures had an artistic andsocially redeeming value.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed by a fiveto-fourvote, ruling that Miller’s material “lacksserious literary, artistic, political, or scientificvalue.” The Court allowed jurors to apply a“community standard” in determining obscenity.Texas v. Johnson491 U.S. 397 (1989)Gregory Lee Johnson was convictedof burning an American flag at the RepublicanNational Convention in Dallas, Tex., in 1984.He was sentenced to a year in prison.On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled Johnson’s actions were protectedby the First Amendment as symbolicpolitical speech. Justice WilliamBrennan wrote: “We do not consecratethe flag by punishing its desecration, forin doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherishedsymbol represents.”New York Times v. United States403 U.S. 713 (1971)The New York Times published materialfrom a top-secret Defense Department document(popularly known as the Pentagon Papers)detailing a history of the Vietnam War. Governmentlawyers immediately claimed a breach ofnational security and asked the courts to prohibitthe Times from printing further excerpts.The Supreme Court refused, ruling that thegovernment had not met the “heavy burden” ofproving that national security claims outweighedthe First Amendment.Branzburg v. Hayes408 U.S. 665 (1972)A reporter for the Courier-Journal inLouisville, Ky., wrote a story about two youngmen who turned marijuana into hashish, a morepotent hallucinogenic drug. The reporter promisedthe men to keep their names confidential.When the reporter refused to tell a judge theidentity of his informants, he risked being jailedfor contempt of court. The reporter filed suitagainst the judge.The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court,which by a 5-to-4 vote ruled that the Court “cannotseriously entertain the notion that the FirstAmendment protects a newsman’s agreement toconceal the criminal conduct of his source.” Butfour justices disagreed, saying news sourceswould “dry up” if they feared disclosure.Abington School District v.Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963)The Pennsylvania legislature’s actionrequirement public school start its day by reading10 verses from the Bible was ruled unconstitutionalby the U.S. Supreme Court.Justice Tom Clark wrote: “In the relationshipbetween man and religion, the state is firmlycommitted to a position of neutrality.”R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,Minnesota 505 U.S. 377 (1992)A black family living in a white neighborhoodawoke one night to discover a crossburning on their front lawn. Two teenagers werearrested and charged with violating a “hatecrime” law. One challenged the law as a content-basedviolation of the First Amendment.The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed,but justices were divided on which standard theCourt should apply. Five justices believed thatany content-based limitation of speech is unconstitutional.Four justices would retain the “fightingwords” exception to the First Amendmentbut said the city law was “overbroad” in banningsome kinds of protected speech.


Page 6The shield of theFirst Amendmentcan be used forgood or bad. A person’smotives, values andmoral awareness areamong the factors thatdirect an individual togood or bad, right orwrong decisions.First Amendmentfreedoms intentionallyor inadvertently can beabused. Supreme CourtJustice Byron Whitewarned against frustratingthe core value of theamendment, which isprotecting the “flow ofintelligence” necessaryto support self-governmentin a free society.He criticized those whowould use the shield ofthe amendment forunethical purposes.Defining EthicsEthics is the processwe use for determiningwhat is good or bad, rightor wrong. Ethics helps usbalance our rights withour responsibilities.Ethics causes us to considerwhat is righteous,to think beyond our selfinterestsin favor of doingwhat is best for society.The term ethics comesfrom the Greek word“ethos,” which meanscharacter. An ethical personis a person of goodcharacter who strives tomake “right” choices.Those “right” choices areself-determined by eachindividual. Ethics is voluntaryconduct that isself-enforced.Although ethics isrelated to law, it differsfrom law in that law issocially determined andsocially enforced. Ethicsgoes beyond the considerationof law.Law tells us what wecan do; ethics, what weshould do.DecidingWhat’s RightWhat is legal may notbe what is ethical. Havingthe right to saysomething doesn’t makeit right to say it.What if the sports editorof your student newspaperpicks a photo of agirl wrestler from a visitingteam nearly pinninga boy wrestler from yoursquad. Should he run it?Does it make a differenceif the sports editorhas a grudge against theboy wrestler? If the picturecould win the photographera major award?If the match is for thestate championship?What are “right” answersto those questions?The famous broadcasterWalter Cronkite oncesaid, “Truth knows neitherfriend nor enemy, norcan those who pursue it.”Making “right” decisionsis not always easy. Oftenthere is a dilemma ofconflicting loyalties.What do you do if yousee a stranger stealingsomething from the lockerof your best friend? Oryour best friend stealingfrom a stranger? Wouldyou respond the sameway in both incidents?Are you loyal to theconcepts of justice andfairness? Or does loyalty45 WORDS OF FREEDOMRights also bring responsibilitiesGoals: In Pursuit of VirtueThe Learner Will...❐ Provide examples of how theprotection of the First Amendment canbe used for “good” and “bad.”❐ Define “ethics” and relate thedefinition to the First Amendment.❐ Explain two significant differencesbetween “law” and “ethics.”❐ Explain the quotation of WalterCronkite.❐ Tell the purpose of a Code of Ethics.❐ Write a paragraph showing howthe American Society of NewspaperEditors’ Code of Ethics is organized.❐ Provide an example of conflictingloyalties related to the First Amendment.to a friend supercedeother considerations?Adopting aCode of EthicsMany professions haveadopted their own “Codeof Ethics” to help membersmake decisions. Thecodes reflect principlesof conduct related to theissues of the profession.For example, “AStatement of Principles”of the American Societyof Newspaper Editorshas ethical comments onresponsibility, freedomof the press, truth andaccurance, independence,impartiality and fair play.They provide guidancefor decision-makers tacklingthe issues and eventsof their profession. Suchcodes provide a thoughtfulperspective of whatone’s colleagues considerto be proper conduct insituations.However, there willalways be those who ignoreethical considerationsand act on selfish motives.Within the parameters oflaw, people are permittedto abuse freedom. Wecannot make laws forcingpeople to have unselfishattitudes, virtuousvalues and noble beliefs.We cannot pass a lawthat citizens must alwaysmake “good” or “right”decisions. In a free society,citizens have choices.Some choices lack ethicalintegrity, betray thespirit of the First Amendmentand fall at the veryfar edge of a protectedfreedom.In such a case, the❐ Explain “evolving nature” of theFirst Amendment.❐ Show an effective way to promoteethics and fight abuse of the FirstAmendment.❐ Tell how an ethical approach todecision-making stregthens freedom anddemocracy.temptation to narrow that freedom maybe great. But the temptationmust be resisted. A line willalways exist between behaviorprotected by lawand behavior that is not.If we reduce the distanceto that line eachtime free speech is challenged,our freedomsperpetually erode.The “Credo for Freeand ResponsibleCommunicationin a DemocraticSociety” of theSpeech CommunicationAssociation defendstolerating expressionthat falls at the veryedge of protected speech:“We support the propositionthat a free society can absorbwith equanimity speechwhich exceeds the boundaries ofgenerally accepted beliefs andmorals; that much good and littleharm can ensue if we err on theside of freedom, whereas muchharm and little good may follow ifwe err on the side of suppression.”Promoting EthicsThe best way to promote ethicsand fight abuse of the First Amendmentis to develop a keen understanding— a panoramic vision —of that cornerstone of Americanfreedom. The more we learn aboutthe First Amendment, the more weappreciate the beauty of its protective,multidimensional, evolvingnature.By considering ethics, legalities,diversity, discovery, and otheraspects inherent to the meaning ofthe First Amendment, one can betterapply it in ways that strengthen freedomand democracy.It is wise to remember, however,that different eyes see differentthings. What is purelymanure to one person may be fertilizerto another.The shield of the FirstAmendment is meant to protectthe rights and welfare ofall citizens. We must use itwith conscious awareness ofethical implications, else thatshield may become corroded.


45 WORDS OF FREEDOM Page 7Rights change at the schoolhouse gateWhen teachers andstudents enterthe publicschoolhouse gate, they areobligated to adapt their personalfreedoms guaranteedby the First Amendment ina way that conforms to thebest interests of society andthe school environment.For example, althoughteachers are free to sharetheir personal religiousbeliefs outside of school,they are not permitted todiscuss their religious valueswith students in school.In school, teachers mustrestrict their freedom inorder to satisfy the “establishmentclause” of theFirst Amendment.Government NeutralityThe First Amendmentbegins: “Congress shallmake no law respecting anestablishment of religion...”This means that the governmentmust remain neutralon all matters concerningreligion. It cannot doanything that would encourageor discourage areligious belief.If a public schoolteacher, who is an agent ofthe government because hissalary is paid by taxpayers,shared his personal religiousphilosophy, it couldinfluence the attitudes ofstudents and violate theneutrality requirement. Theterm “separation of churchand state” is often used inreference to the government’sobligation to remainneutral on religious issues.Students, too, have toadapt their First Amendmentrights to fit specialcircumstances of a schoolsetting. Rights they haveoutside school may bemore limited inside school.For example, in the1986 case of Bethel v.Fraser, the U.S. SupremeCourt ruled that although astudent council candidate’scampaign speech mayhave been protected beyondschool walls, it couldbe censored in a schoolsetting. In this case, a studentdelivered a speechthat contained suggestivelanguage that was vulgarand indecent.Different StandardsThe Court stated: “Itdoes not follow...that simplybecause the use of anoffensive form of expressionmay not be prohibitedto adults making what thespeaker considers a politicalpoint, the same latitudemust be permitted to childrenin public school.In explaining its decision,the court reasonedthat one mission of schoolGoals: Adapting Speech to SchoolThe Learner Will...❐ Explain why we mustsometimes adapt our freedom of speechin light of special times, places and circumstances.❐ Recite and explain the“establishment” clause of theFirst Amendment.❐ Summarize the facts andopinion of the U.S. Supreme Court case ofBethel v. Fraser.❐ Describe protection studentsand teachers have under Tinker v. DesMoines.❐ Identify the criterion thatHazelwood v. Kulhmeier added toTinker in determining justification ofrestricting student speech.“Studentsin schoolas well as outof school are‘persons’under ourConstitution.”❐ Expalin what different betweenpublic and private/parochial relates toFirst Amendment protections.❐ Relate two legal differencesbetween official student publications and“underground” publications.❐ Present a strategy for honoring thesubstance and spirit of the FirstAmendment.Tinker v. Des MoinesBoard of Education, 1969is to promote “habits andmanners of civility’ that areessential to a democraticsociety.”Judicial SupportAlthough the courtsrecognize some exceptions,they strongly support FirstAmendment protection forstudent expression insideschool walls.The cases of Tinker v.Des Moines Board of Educationand HazelwoodSchool District v. Kuhlmeier(see Pages 2 and 5)make it clear that studentsDO HAVE profound protectionunder the FirstAmendment.In fact, in the Bethelcase, the Court may haveruled otherwise had thespeech not been deliveredbefore the “captive audience”of an assembly thatwas part of an officialschool program.Under Tinker, schoolofficials could restrict studentspeech only if it wouldresult in “material and substantialdisruption” or “invasionof the rights of others.”In censorship, theburden of proof falls uponschool officials.The Tinker Court ruled:“In our system, state-operatedschools may not beenclaves of totalitarianism.School officials do not possessabsolute authority overtheir students.“Students in school aswell as out of school are‘persons’ under our Constitution.They are possessedof fundamentalrights which the Statemust respect...In our system,students may not beregarded as closed-circuitrecipients of only thatwhich the State chooses tocommunicate. They maynot be confined to theexpression of those sentimentsthat are officiallyapproved.”The Hazelwood decisionreaffirmed Tinker butadded another criterion thatwould justify restriction ofspeech: School officialscould restrict studentspeech if they could show avalid educational purposefor their censorship andthat the censorship is notintended to silence a particularviewpoint that theydisagree with or that isunpopular.Nonpublic SchoolsStudents should understandthat private and parochialschools are not agenciesof the state. Theytherefore have far fewerprotections under the FirstAmendment.Official student publications,whether part of thecurriculum or not, are protectedfrom censorshipwithin the parameters ofTinker and Hazelwood.If the publication is recognizedby policy or practiceas a public forum (withthe publication open for indiscriminateuse for sharinginformation and opinions),then it is exempt fromHazelwood’s restrictions.“Underground” PapersStudents who publish“underground” (nonschool-sponsored)publicationshave the right to distributethem on schoolgrounds during the schoolday. Officials may determinereasonable times andplaces for the distribution.Underground newspaperscannot be censored ortheir staff members disciplinedin the absence ofexceptionally compellingcircumstances.A number of courts haveruled that undergroundpublications are not subjectto prior review. Officialscannot require that they besubmitted for approvalprior to distribution.The bottom line is thatcourts protect the right ofstudents to express themselves,even when theirmessage may be controversialand cause discomfort toothers. The protection,however, has parameters.Students are advised tohonor the substance and thespirit of the First Amendmentby basing decisionson ethical standards. Schoolofficials are encouraged torecognize student rightsand to teach students aboutthe First Amendment.


Page 845 WORDS OF FREEDOMEmbrace the First AmendmentPerhaps no vehiclecan better promotethe basic missionof any school — enlightenment— than the FirstAmendment.Perhaps no instrumentcan better cultivate safetyin school than theFirst Amendment.Perhaps no documentcan better engage studentsin learning to applythe rights and responsibilitiesof citizens thanthe First Amendment.Yet, the 45 words ofthe First Amendment aredistant, little understood,and seldom applied in fartoo many schools.Those schools whichhave welcomed the FirstAmendment have enrichedlearning in a waythat allows students toengage in democracyrather than study it fromafar.The First Amendmentprotects the right of freepeople to give intellectualor spiritual light toideas. What better cornerstonechampions themission of education!Schools that practiceFirst Amendment principlesallow students toprobe any idea — evenif the idea favors anunpopular position,stirs controversy, orchallenges the attitudesMore resources are onlineThere are a number of First Amendment resources available through your locallibrary and on the Internet. Listed below are a sampling of Web sites we suggest visitingto find more First Amendment insights:• Illinois Press Association/Foundation — http://www.il-press.com• Copley First Amendment Center — http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.org• The Freedom Forum — http://www.freedomforum.org/first• The Newseum — http://www.newseum.org• The Dow Jones Newspaper Fund — http://djnewspaperfund.dowjones.com• The First Amendment Project — http://www.thefirstamendment.org• The First Amendment Handbook — http://www.rcfp.org/handbook• First Amendment Schools — http://www.firstamendmentschools.org• First Amendment Cyber-Tribune — http://www.w3.trib.com/FACTYou may also register for the Bill of Rights Institute’s First Amendment electronicnewsletter by sending an e-mail to newsletters@billofrightsinstitute.org.“TheFirstAmendmentin all its parts,is thebackboneof ourfree society.”of authority. (“Authority”once believed the worldwas flat!)Some educators wouldlimit learning to onlythose ideas sanctioned bythe school. They wouldcensor any issue thatcould disturb the harmonyof the school.But disruption of harmonydoesn’t necessarilymean harm. A boisterousdebate, a student who“makes waves,” a lawfulprotest, or an excitingcontroversy — all willlikely spark more relevantlearning than a tranquilclassroom committedprimarily to the rotememory of facts.Some people claimthat recognizing FirstAmendment rights ofstudents could causedisorder and jeopardizethe safety of students.Ironically, the FirstAmendment was createdto protect individuals.Yet many schools do notyet embrace it as aninstrument of safety.Some school officialsare afraid students lackthe maturity to safelyapply the principles ofKen PaulsonExecutive DirectorThe First Amendment Centerthe First Amendment.They fear youthful exerciseof free expressionmay stir controversy inways that will fuel conflictand put people inphysical, emotional,moral, and/or professionaljeopardy.However, any effortto maximize safety byminimizing the FirstAmendment is completelyself-defeating.In schools that teachand practice it, the FirstAmendment is theprincipal route to safety.It is a catalyst forteaching responsibility,ethics, intrinsic motivationand control.It is a vehicle forteaching how to dealwith controversy, how toachieve peaceful resolutionof conflict, how toaccept and respect diversity,and how to use freeexpression as a tool forconciliation.The best schools knowhow to apply remediesless offensive than censorshipto help safeguardagainst poor judgment,abuse, and other deficienciesthat accompanyfreedom of expression.These schools honorthe law, teach ethics andrespect student rights.They help youngpeople develop a moralphilosophy by recognizingthem as partnersrather than as mere subordinates;by involvingthem in meaningful situationswhere their inputis real rather than cosmetic;by accepting theirdivergent views as a catalystfor learning ratherthan as a threat to authority;and by granting thema degree of autonomywhere limits are definedrather than arbitrary.We must committo embrace the FirstAmendment’s 45 wordsof freedom!Sponsors of this First Amendment SupplementIllinois PressFoundationPublic education is a vitalcomponent of the Illinois PressCopley First Amendment CenterFoundation’s mission statement.The foundation works with the Illinois Press Association,America’s largest state media organization serving more than 600newspapers. Both are located online at http://www.il-press.com.Directing the foundation are President Jerry Reppert; vicepresident Tom Phillips; treasurer Lanning Macfarland; secretaryDavid Bennett; manager Nancy Bohl; and directors StephenAnderson, Jim Dean, Bill Garth, Howard Hay, Walter Jaehnig Jr.,Charlie Jones, Nathan Jones, Jack Kubik Sr., Barry Locher, TomMathews Jr., Jerry Piper, John David Reed, Duane Reeves,William Schroeder Sr., Randy Swikle, Charles Wheeler, JonWhitney, Chris Winter, Wayne Woltman and Cheryl Wormley.The Copley First Amendment Center and the Illinois PressFoundation help citizens and journalists understand the freedomsguaranteed by the First Amendment. The Center, found online athttp://www. illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.org, developed this documentwith grants from the National Freedom of InformationCoalition and the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.Directing the Center are chairman John Foreman, managerBeth Bennett and members Stephen Anderson, Jack Brimeyer,Don Craven, Dale Cohen, Linda Cunningham, Mark Sweetwood,Bernie Judge, James Klenk, Dick O’Brien, Barry Locher, RussScott, Jim Reindl, Judge Robert Steigman and Cheryl Wormley.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines