Archived news from JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission

Feb. 26 , 2008:

Press Rights Commission releases draft of Principles of Responsible Media Programs for comment

To help kick off Scholastic Journalism Week, JEA's Press Rights Commission would like your feedback on a major project for 2008, a package titled ThinkFirst. We envision this package to help define and implement principles of responsible journalism in all scholastic media.

The first part of that package, which will be explained more in Anaheim, is listed below. These Six Principles for Responsible Student Media Programs summarize the commission's feeling that, to successfully combat the trend toward censorship, we first need to define what we, as educators, define as responsible journalism.

By doing so, the Commission hopes to find common ground with administrators' view of our educational process. More importantly, we hope to establish our philosophy in terms of education as well as civic responsibility.

Please take some time to study the proposed six principles and comment on them to the list. Share them with your students, your students' parents and even with administrators. Then, let us know what you think: jabowen@kent.edu

Responsible student media programs:

1. Establish policies for effective and responsible reporting
Student media policies and processes allow all media to operate as open forums where students practice their First Amendment rights and responsibilities. A code of ethics for students and advisers, based on professional standards such as those of the Journalism Education Association and Society of Professional Journalists, supplement these policies.

Professional journalism organizations (THE JOURNALISM EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, THE CENTER FOR SCHOLASTIC JOURNALISM AND HOPEFULLY OTHER PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM ORGANIZATIONS TO BE ADDED) urge administrators to support and reinforce these policies as a way to encourage student journalists, and to recognize ethical codes as a guide to student behavior. When they adhere to professional, legal and ethical standards, student journalists enhance their credibility and build public trust.

2. Provide opportunities through student-run media to build better citizens who can apply critical thinking and decision-making skills.
In addition to the skills specific to journalism programs, producing their own media teaches students to participate actively in the democratic process. In addition, students learn to make wise decisions through critical thinking, to lead others, to collaborate with others, to manage deadlines and budgets, to interview and interact with a wide range of sources and peers, to prioritize and resolve conflict. Prior review and prior restraint create an educational atmosphere in which students cannot learn from their decision-making, thus inhibiting the development of life skills that are the foundation of good citizenship in a democratic society.

A strong scholastic journalism program helps schools do a better job of educating citizens. The results of a strong journalism program extends beyond the classroom and positively affects the entire school community, modeling the media's role in a democratic society as a forum for the exchange of information and ideas essential to the process of informed decision making.

3. Hire and depend on professionally educated advisers who use proven curricula
Although some come to the profession planning to advise, equipped with training in journalistic writing and production, media law, and publication management, others develop a passion for journalism through learning as they teach and advise student media. It is imperative for advisers of all backgrounds to have access to educational opportunities for professional development.

A responsible student media program implements a curriculum that provides practical experiences in developing the civic responsibilities of all journalists, preparing students to have a career in media and/or to be critical consumers of the media.

Successful advisers know to include journalism ethics and instruction on First Amendment law as part of the curriculum. Such instruction instills responsibility in student staffers as they learn and practice standards of professional journalism. An adviser educated in the principles of responsible journalism becomes the expert in matters concerning student publications and can advise the administration in dealing with the public. Educated advisers also make significant contributions to the building of a strong program and sound curriculum by participating at the state, regional and national level through conferences, contests and critiques to ensure students learn from a wide and diverse range of competent journalists and knowledgeable advisers.

4. Ensure open lines of communication among students, teachers, administrators and community members
If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes an entire scholastic community to build a successful student media program. When students, advisers, school and district administrators, professional journalists and community members understand the importance of practicing professionally oriented and ethical journalism, the program thrives through a positive exchange of ideas and concerns. The program also advances the citizenships missions of the school system through active student participation.

Practicing the concept of transparency also expands communication, which helps the school accomplish its goals and objectives and advance its educational mission. Transparency means showing how journalists learned about and gathered information and why it is essential to the reporting process. Such reporting depth engages all community segments in a learning experience.

5. Encourage balance in student media content through the use of complete, accurate and thorough information with access to diverse sources
Successful media content relies on nuts and bolts: correctly spelled names, properly identified people and accurate facts and figures. Through research, including use of credible Web sites, and through interviews, student reporters gather information to reflect multiple perspectives. Student journalists must have access to reliable and relevant resources, including school records and proceedings open by law to the public.

Accurate information is the basis for creating a democratic community and making human connections. But accuracy without perspective is not enough. Although others can spread information, sometimes more quickly than journalists, scholastic journalism takes on expanded roles of verification and synthesis.

6. Produce media that report information in context, visually and verbally, to enhance their comprehension and greater good for all communities
Student journalists demonstrate the ability to write and edit clear, concise and accurate articles, scripts and related text; to create strong photos, videos and illustrations to accurately convey the content's message; and to package these elements in a way that maintains the completeness of the information. Because today's audiences initially scan rather than read, these first impressions are important in perceiving the overall story. Audiences must see themselves in media coverage, and in proportion to overall society.

Such journalism programs would empower students to practice journalism consistent with the highest and most ethical professional standards of print and electronic journalism. Empowered programs also increase audience interdependency and involvement through reporting, learning, understanding and educating, demonstrating the fact journalism's first loyalty is to citizens of the various communities it serves.

Nov. 26 , 2007:

Comments of Illinois First Amendment Center's Dave Williams to the NCTE convention Nov. 17, 2007 in New York City

At the beginning of my professional career, I spent several years as a high school English teacher and a university journalism professor.  I loved those experiences, and I still get nostalgic when I think of those days.  I made great friends, and I still hear occasionally from students I knew many years ago.

But, most of my career has been spent as a press association executive director.  While I did not come here today to discuss what I do for a living, suffice it to say that my experiences in the trenches of scores of First Amendment battles have shaped the way I see the world.  And, if I were to step back into the classroom today, I think I would teach the same subjects very differently.

So, what I would like to share with you today is what I would want my students to know before they left my classroom if I were to teach them again.  Mostly, I would want them to know more about the most precious freedom they have in their lives – that is,   the constitutional freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is a simple concept and consists of only 45 words.  Nevertheless, it stands as a cornerstone to American freedom:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 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.”

Its protection enables all Americans to participate in democracy – to believe what we want to believe and to express our views within the limits of the law. 

Where better than the classroom to demonstrate how the First Amendment protects our rights as individuals?

Point 1.  First, I would want them to understand that they have the
freedom to think, believe and express their thoughts however they choose, and that those freedoms are directly related to literally everything they do in life, every decision they make, and every privilege they choose to enjoy in this society.

Point 2.  I would want them to know that these freedoms and privileges are not available in many other countries, and that the United States is unique in its interpretation and application of the First Amendment.

Point 3.  I would want them to know that the First Amendment is an integral part of our democracy, and that our political system would not work well without it.

Point 4.  I would want them to know that the First Amendment is not absolute because prior restraint and censorship abound in many forms and always have throughout history.

Point 5. I would want them to know that the U. S. Supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of censorship and prior restraint.  The Court uses a balancing test to measure the importance of individual expression against the good of society.

Point 6. I would want them to know that the essence of protecting First Amendment values starts with each individual’s ability to come to realize his/her own biases, to tolerate the expression of others, and to exercise this freedom wisely.

Point 7.  And finally, I would want them to know that our First Amendment freedoms are dissipating, and it will take all of us to keep them strong.

Now, having outlined what I would like to teach, if I had the chance to do it again, let’s take a closer look at each point.

Point 1. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND EVERY DAY LIFE

In the United States, young people enjoy many freedoms that are afforded to them by the First Amendment as they move through their daily lives.  Often they do not realize that they are able to do the things they do and say the things they say because of the First Amendment.

Let’s consider some of those rights THAT TODAY’S YOUTH (& the rest of us) enjoy:

• At the age of 18, young people have the right to vote for the political candidates of their choice – or not vote at all.

They also have the right to criticize political candidates.  Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, voter turnout in Iraq was 100%.  Iraqi citizens enjoyed NO political freedom – no choice in candidates.  Saddam Hussein was their only choice. And no one would dare criticize him.

• Students have the right to express their dissatisfaction at school when they believe that an administrative decision is unjust.  In many countries, that would never happen.

• Along that same line, students have the right to sign petitions at school when they see the need for change.

Within acceptable limits, students have the right to express their individuality in the way they dress.

• Students have the right to gather in public places or hang out at the mall with friends.

• Many schools have student newspapers where students – again within reasonable limits – enjoy freedom of the press.

• We all have the freedom to pray at the church of our choice and not where the government tells us we must pray. Or, we may choose not to pray at all if we so decide.

• And these rights go on and on.

If students clearly understood that these rights stem from the First Amendment,

I believe they would have a far greater appreciation of the First Amendment.

Also, they would appreciate it more, if they understood that the same privileges often do not exist in other countries.

Point 2.  FREE EXPRESSION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

I would want my students to contrast the First Amendment freedoms in this country with those of other countries where various forms of tyranny or religious autocracy exist.

I can return to this section later if you wish.  But for the purpose of illustration:

Suffice it to say that in countries such as Libya, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Southern Philippines, Chile, Iran, and many others, severe restrictions on free expression and religion exist. Threats, beatings, imprisonment, torture, death, and even beheadings, are all commonplace in certain parts of the world where free expression is not tolerated by the government or the church.

Point 3.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEMOCRACY

Seeing these contrasts with other countries that are not as fortunate is important.  It could help students realize how integral democracy is with the principles of free thought and free expression.

• It is how we elect our leaders.

• We depend on the free flow of information to help us make decisions and to monitor the activities of our government.

• It allows us to gather and disseminate information as we wish.

• It helps to keep government open to the people which in turn allows for self-determination.

But the First Amendment is not absolute.  We are not guaranteed the 100 percent use of free speech without consequence.  That is why certain types of censorship and prior restraint exist today.

Point 4.  PRIOR RESTRAINT AND CENSORSHIP

In order to understand the balance between the First Amendment and democracy, it is helpful to look at the antithesis of freedom of expression – prior restraint and censorship.

Censorship is sometimes used interchangeably with prior restraint.  There is a difference, but we won’t get too bogged down with that today.  Suffice it to say that prior restraint or censorship occurs when any governing body prohibits a form of expression it does not want to tolerate.

An example of prior restraint might be when a written school policy prohibits the student newspaper from writing any article that deals with teen pregnancy.

An example of censorship might be when the same article pertaining to teen pregnancy is written and then is either omitted or significantly altered by the high school principal.

Both accomplish the same end, but they go about it differently.

Obviously, prior restraint is more blatant and perhaps more insidious because it denies expression at the outset. Censorship is not a new phenomenon, and its practice may be seen throughout history. If one studies history, it is clear that challenges to the existing order of society have been dealt with through ostracism, imprisonment, beatings, torture, and even death.

The following are a few historical examples of censorship:

• 837 B.C – Plato suggested Homer’s Odyssey be censored for immature readers.  Later the Roman emperor Caligula burns the book.

• 1244 A.D. – The Talmud was burned by Christians on charges of blasphemy and immorality.

• 400 years later – Martin Luther’s Bible was ordered burned in Germany by the Pope.

• 1933 Hitler – burned an estimated 25,000 books by noted Jewish authors.

• And in that same year -- Novelist James Joyce’s Ulysses was banned from entry to the U.S. at the port of Boston because it was viewed as too immoral. These examples demonstrate that censorship is not a new phenomenon.  It has been a fundamental part of all societies. Even in our political democracy, with all of its First Amendment protections, censorship has been prevalent. In fact, for much of our history in America, the pattern of censorship was mostly blatant and discriminatory, depending on the location and political climate.  But, a famous court case in 1933 – Near vs. Minnesota – changed that pattern significantly.

• The Near case involved the Minneapolis city government using a local ordinance to literally shut down a newspaper because it routinely attacked corruption in city hall.  It went to court and ultimately ended up in the U. S. Supreme Court.

• In its 5-4 ruling, the Court said the ordinance was not designed to redress wrongs for individual attacks but rather was designed to shut the publication down entirely.  The justices added that prior restraint is permitted only in very unusual circumstances, and it is the exception rather than the rule.

• This is very important because virtually every court case involving prior restraint or censorship after this used this basic concept to make a decision.  If you are going to punish a form of expression, then that punishment must be aimed at the specific wrong that needs to be corrected and not at trying to prevent the expression altogether.

Point 5.  BALANCING THE FIRST AMENDMENT WITH OTHER RIGHTS

Since Near, the U. S. Supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of censorship and prior restraint.It uses a balancing test to measure the importance of individual expression versus the good of society. Let’s take a brief look at how balancing applies in real situations.

• Yelling fire in a crowded theater:  You have the freedom to say it, but you likely will be punished for it because it could cause panic, injury or death.

• Unpopular opinions:  Lacking the impact of causing panic, injury, or death, other inflammatory forms of expression are generally tolerated. They are almost universally protected no matter how obnoxious they may be.  Famous jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate.”

• Obscenity and pornography:  It is not protected speech under the Constitution.  It can be prevented.  The trick is in defining it.  What is obscenity?  One person’s obscenity may be another’s art or form of open expression. So, today, to restrain obscene expression it must be prosecuted under state statutes that use a three-part test stemming from a USSC case in the 70s to narrowly define what types of acts are considered obscene.  It is very complicated.

•National security issues:  It can’t be restrained merely because it is a form of expression that is against our government or military interests.  Generally speaking one can say, write or express in any manner his/her opposition to U.S. interests.  However, if a direct link can be shown that our national security is clearly at risk, then free expression may be restrained.  Usually, this means that would-be censors must demonstrate a “clear and present danger.”

• In times of war:  Here the courts have sometimes taken more conservative views.

It is clear that USSC is more sympathetic of the use of prior restraint of the press and expression when we are at war. There are many cases that document this. But, once again, even in these cases the test must be met – that there must be a demonstration that U.S. war interests and the lives of our military forces are clearly at risk, in order to justify the use of prior restraint, and court decisions have come down on both sides of the balance debate.

• Libel (defamation of character):  Here is a good example of what I would call post restraint.  One can print virtually anything about anyone.  However, if the subject of the comments is defamed in the process (i.e. damage their character or reputation) to the point that they are actually harmed (i.e., lose money, lose job, scorned by community, etc.),  then the injured party may sue for libel and perhaps collect damages (money) for the harm caused them. Libel is an excellent example of the balancing test in action.  It demonstrates that one has the freedom to express freely, but if that expression creates a wrong under the law, then the courts will need to balance the two competing rights.

Point 6.  CENSORSHIP STARTS WITH INDIVIDUAL BIASES

Ultimately, whether something becomes victimized by prior restraint, censorship or some form of post restraint comes down to tolerance as an extension of individual bias. We all are biased.  Each of us has a point at which we will not tolerate some form of expression.  At that point, we might indulge in censorship in some form. What is your level of tolerance?

The following are some statements for each of you to answer to test your own personal censorship tolerance.  There is no right or wrong answer.  These examples are intended to test how you feel.

A.  Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should be banned from school science curriculum unless the creationist theory of Intelligent Design also is taught as an alternative scientific theory.

B.  Neo-Nazi groups should be banned from holding a rally in public in a community where a large number of Holocaust survivors and their families reside.

C.  High school principals should have the authority to either ban a school newspaper, or control its content, if he/she thinks it is in the best interests of the school to do so.

D.  The FBI should be able to obtain search warrants for libraries, without probable cause, by claiming the records are related to a terrorism investigation;  and then, impose a “gag order” prohibiting any person from discussing  it.  (Section 215 of USA Patriot Act – officially “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”).

All of these questions stem from real situations.  They are not hypothetical.

• Each involves a form of censorship.

• If you agreed with any of these examples, that would make you very normal.

• All of us might support censorship at some level when expression collides with our core beliefs and values.

Key Test – Would you act on your feelings or would you tolerate those forms of expression you find offensive?  That is the ultimate question we all have to ask ourselves.

Point 7.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT -- KEEP IT STRONG!

Three years ago, the organization I manage got a wakeup call.  Being in the business of practicing press freedom, and certainly being advocates of the First Amendment, we were unaware of how badly the constitutional freedom we held so dear was viewed by others. It was against this backdrop, that the Knight Foundation released the stunning results of a nationwide First Amendment attitude survey conducted with more than 100,000 high school students from 544 high schools across the United States.

You can go online to www.knightfoundation.com to read the entire study, but here are just a few of the more alarming revelations:

• Nearly 3/4 of all students surveyed either don’t know how they feel about the FA or they take it for granted. By the way, one of the findings of the Knight study is that more students can name the five members of the Simpson family than what can name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. That’s why you see Homer here.

• Nearly 1/4 did not know enough about the FA to even give an opinion on it.

• After the text of the First Amendment was read to students; more than 1/3 felt that it goes too far in the rights it guarantees. To this last point – I would ask – what right - or rights - would we willingly give up in this country?

The Illinois First Amendment Center

The Illinois Press Association and its Foundation created the Illinois First Amendment Center to help teachers educate students of all ages about the First Amendment. All of our materials are free except for nominal shipping and handling fees and are in use in every state in country as well as a couple of foreign countries.

We have developed

• Curriculum guides

• Coloring and activity books

• Posters for younger grades

• And for older students

• Television and radio spots

• Newspaper house ads

• Flash cards

• And First Amendment videos

• Many of our materials are available in Spanish and English

You can view these materials and place orders online at www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com.

All schools, including colleges, that receives federal funding are required to teach about the U.S. Constitution annually on Constitution Day Sept. 17. These First Amendment materials are a perfect compliment to that obligation.

By helping you with Constitution Day materials, you help strengthen the First Amendment. That’s our motto for the First Amendment – Keep it strong!

July 4 , 2007:

JEA states position on Bong Hits 4 Jesus decision

JEA's board of directors released a statement July 2 on the Supreme Court's Bong Hits decision. The board will also release a set of teaching materials and talking points later this month. It will also announce a contest for reporting, opinion and editorial cartooning on the decision at that time. To see the board's press release, click here.

Look for more information soon. If you have developed any teaching plans around this decision or seen columns or articles worthy of our attention, please forward links to them, or copies, to commission chair John Bowen.

Feb. 1, 2007:

JEA response to Seattle Times editorial against Washington state H.B. 1307

President Ann Visser today restated JEA's beliefs and policies that students should control the content of student publications. Visser sent this letter (below) following a Seattle Times editorial called for a "compromise" to the bill making teachers and advisers have final say in media content. The SPLC also issued a press release , WJEA sent a letter, as did CSPA executive director Ed Sullivan.

JEA's letter:

If we thought compromise with school officials would work as easily as the Seattle Times suggests in its Feb. 1 editorial, we would have advocated it and tried to implement it long ago.

Unfortunately, the “tweaks” the Times offers in “Young Journalists, Meet Your Editors” are either educationally inappropriate or ineffective or both.

The Journalism Education Association, with many active members in Washington State, believes student publications are a valid and integral part of the educational system. They are recognized by that system as providing students with a hands-on learning laboratory that gives them the chance to put into practice the most noble ideas of democracy, sound writing and critical thinking skills and other core areas of learning.

Unfortunately, SOME administrators want to block factual, complete and thorough reporting. And, when this happens, learning stops.

Any compromise, as the Seattle Times suggests, will not work because such censorship runs counter to both educational and democratic principles and subverts citizens’ right to be informed.

Rather than taking the educator out of the process, H.B. 1307 allows learning to take place between a trained, dedicated teacher/adviser and the student staff.

Becoming the censor is certainly not what journalism educators want either. Allowing them “to have the final say before going to press,” as the editorial suggests, puts teachers in a role that short-circuits the learning process.

We do, however, like the concept of principals attending workshops with journalists and journalism educators. In fact, we have tried it. We presented session at administrators’ conferences and offered sessions for them at ours. Unfortunately, few attended, and little collaboration took place.

Rep. Dave Upthegrove’s legislation provides for collaboration, and even compromise, based on open and meaningful give and take between student decision makers, teachers and administrators.

Under that legislation and in journalism programs without prior review, educators are never left out of the advising, teaching and challenging process. Students learn skills, practice citizenship and develop critical thinking without the specter of censorship.

Students learn responsibility because administrators know they could share their concerns and open their minds to hear what students say. In that process, true compromise is indeed possible.

Jan. 20, 2007:

ThinkFirst

JEA's Press Rights Commission recently began a series of podcasts at the iTunes store. These podcasts are merely the first elements of a campaign to provide materials and activities supporting the importance of free expression in scholastic media as a means of continuing our democracy. Go to the iTunes program to access the store. There, go to podcasts>education>K-12 and look for ThinkFirst and the JEA logo. Watch for more updates.

April 26, 2006:

JEA Board passed statements on copyright, plagiarism and roles of printers. It also established a model editorial policy for various student media

Read the details

Feb. 16, 2006:

Want to know more about handling plagiarism and copyright?

Check out these sites for plagiarism

And these for copyright

Oct. 13, 2005:

eSchools article on Internet filtering worth a look

For further information, go to http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=5911

July 7, 2005:

JEA press release on Kansas State court decision

For further information,contact JEA President Ann Visser at annv@lisco.com

Media advisers should not be evaluated on the content of their student publications.

A June 2 federal district court decision in Kansas could lead administrators to believe evaluating student media advisers on the content of their student publications is acceptable, but the Journalism Education Association believes this could endanger freedom of expression in the nation’s secondary schools.

Dismissing the case filed by student newspaper editors and Ron Johnson, the former newspaper adviser at Kansas State University, jeopardizes the rights of those at both the high school and college levels. In the Kansas State case, the judge ruled a content analysis of the student newspaper was an indicator of quality of the publication and did not “implicate the First Amendment rights of Johnson or the student plaintiffs.”

“As educators, we believe students can learn more making decisions about their publications under the guidance of someone trained in journalism,” said Ann Visser, JEA president. “Sometimes, these choices may not be the best, but this is not a reason to punish the adviser.”

The content analysis, the court noted, “had nothing to do with the particular stories appearing in the Collegian.” The content analysis was based on numbers of bylined items, the number of news, feature and sports stories, the percentage of campus stories, the number of sources per story, the number of bylined opinion items and the number of diversity items compared with six other campus newspapers.

After Johnson’s dismissal, JEA passed a resolution at its November 2004 Board meeting in Atlanta that reads in part:

• Whereas the JEA believes the media adviser’s role is many-faceted and includes but is not limited to modeling standards of professional journalistic conduct and empowering students to learn and grow as they make decisions of style, structure, presentation and content;
• Whereas the JEA values free, robust and uncensored student expression and encourages advisers to create a learning atmosphere where students actively practice critical thinking and decision making;
• Whereas the JEA views the process of journalism practices and production to be as valuable to the educational mission as the product students create;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Journalism Education Association encourages administrators at all levels of educational institutions served by student media to seek evaluation tools for their advisers that use methods for assessing an adviser’s performance that take into consideration the many roles he or she must fulfill and not rely on subjective assessment of the media produced.

“Legal arguments indicating an educational organization has the right to remove an adviser based on general content or the quality of such content could greatly harm scholastic and collegiate publications,” said Visser. “If administrators have concerns that publications aren’t improving, there are other remedies within the system short of using content analysis to remove an adviser. JEA strongly opposes removing any adviser by using content analysis as a pretext. Student content should not be a determining factor, and we do not support the use of it.”

April 21, 2005:

Interesting situation in Minnesota

For an interesting situation in Minnesota remenescent of the Tinker case, please go to the Star Tribune's site

April 10, 2005:

Future of the First Amendment Report has error

Even though the Future of the First Amendment report released in January 2005 is an eye opener concerning high school students' attitudes about the First Amendment, there is one glaring error in the report.

April 8, 2005:

JEA/NSPA convention update:

In response to advisers being disciplined or losing their positions because of evaluations based on student content, the JEA board voted to endorse standards for Evaluating Student Media Advisers. Check out the standards which are deisgned to help journalism advisers and teachers assist their administrators with standards for evaluation which reflect advisers' job duties.

April 4, 2005:

Tired of Internet filters blocking your information gathering for journalistic purposes? Check out our Internet filtering monitoring forms to the left. Let JEA's press rights commission know what is being blocked so we can plan strategies to help lessen unreasonable and improper use of Internet filters. Also to the left is a form to let JEA's Press Rights Commission know about censorship issues you face.Watch this space for more information.

For a new set of lesson plans on the Freedom of Information Act, go to FOI.

Feb. 11, 2005:

A student press rights bill (SB 156) was introduced into the Michigan Senate on Feb. 3.It includes anything prepared, written or published by students; distributed, broadcast by closed circuit or cable, or otherwise available to students and done under direction of a certified teacher. Michigan Interscholastic Press Association is coordinating the effort. A copy of the bill is downloadable.

Oct. 5, 2004:

Looking for a different way to show the importance of the First Amendment? Consider this idea from Deb Buttleman Malcolm, MJE.

Sept. 26, 2004:

A site well worth examining

In case you have not seen it yet, The First Amendment Schools Project updated its site in August. Among a good number of significant items are two for educators: How Does Your School Rate and the results of a First Amendment survey that can be downloaded from the site. And, if you have problems in your school with those who don't understand the role of public schools in regard to the First Amendment, be sure to have them take The First Amedment 101 Challenge on the site's front page. Along with opening your eyes, it will provide information to clarify misconceptions.

Sept. 14, 2004:

Under what circumstances can a teacher show a movie in class without running afoul of copyright law?

by James Tidwell
Here is the pertinent language from Section 110 of the Copyright Act:
"...the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) "performance or
display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face
teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom
or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of
individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made
under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew
or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;..."

So if you purchased or rented the film you can show it in class because the
copy of the film was "lawfully made." If you rent then make your own copy,
section 110 isn't applicable. Also, section 110 isn't applicable if you tape
a program off the air and then show it in class. Off-the-air taping is
generally legal only for "private, time-shifting use." Showing it in a class
isn't "private use." Even though section 110 wouldn't protect a teacher in
that situation, section 107 might. You could certainly argue the classroom
showing of a program that you taped off the air was "fair use." But that's a
whole different, complicated subject.
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002 (the
TEACH Act) extended the protection of section 110 to "virtual
classrooms" that are password protected.

I've also collected a number of useful links about copyright.

James Tidwell
Professor of Journalism
Eastern Illinois University