As many as 533 copies of The Easterner weekly newspaper were taken from stands sometime before Saturday evening. Easterner Editor-in-Chief Amy Meyer said staff members began investigating Tuesday, though Meyer noticed suspiciously few papers in one bin Saturday.

Meyer said each copy is worth about $1.97 — 81 cents in reimbursed advertising, 28 cents in printing costs and 88 cents in worker wages. That represents as much as $1,050 in losses if 533 copies were indeed stolen.

Gary Gasseling, deputy chief of the campus police department, said the investigation has reached a standstill because of a lack of evidence and leads.

The papers were taken from as many as five of the 60 buildings on campus. Meyer said about 100 were found in nearby recycling bins. Gasseling said police would do no more active investigating because so few were taken.

“Things would be different if they had taken every newspaper on campus,” Gasseling said.

The Easterner has a total distribution of 3,000. It was stolen on at least one other occasion in the late 1990s or earlier 2000s, Meyer said.

The issue in question focused heavily on a recent drug bust involving current and former Sigma Nu fraternity brothers. A centerpiece story, a front-page opinion piece and a man-on-the-street interview piece each covered the bust.

Meyer said the school’s Greek community was not pleased with the stories.

Parker Hemingway, president of EWU’s Sigma Nu chapter, forwarded questions to Tim Braddick at the national headquarters. Braddick, director of fraternal operations, did not respond by press time.

Gasseling said there’s no proof the Greek community had anything to do with the alleged theft. In fact, Gasseling said it is not filed as a theft with the police department; instead, it’s a “suspicious circumstance.”

“No one can say they were stolen,” he said. “We can’t classify it as a theft.”

However, he said police would open the case up again if a suspect were identified. As of now, though, there are no suspects. He said police did not review security footage for potential suspects because the bins are not in the cameras’ lines of sight.

Even if the police did catch someone, Gasseling said they would likely “handle it internally” and probably would not prosecute. He said he wouldn’t want a theft on a student’s permanent record and would pursue “corrective” rather than punitive measures.

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, introduced a bill in January to guarantee free speech rights to public school students in the state. White authored a bill in 2005 to enhance student speech and press rights, but the legislation died after several years in the Legislature. The 2012 bill is currently with the committee on education.

Senate Bill 120 provides that “a public school student shall have freedom of expression in the public schools of the state, provided that such expression shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school.”

The bill is considerably shorter than the previous legislation proposed by White. The 2005 bill specified that freedom of speech and press would apply to “ bulletin boards; the distribution of printed materials or petitions; the wearing of buttons, badges and other insignia; and expression in school-sponsored publications and other news media whether the publication or medium is supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities or is produced as part of a class.”

Other items removed from the bill include a series of specific exceptions for libelous, obscene and unlawful speech.

“It [the new bill] is cleaner and easier than the last bill. But the bill as introduced is never the bill that passes, as the committee marks up the bill however they want,” White said.

White sees the legislation as a reinforcement of the Tinker standard, which allows school censorship only to prevent a substantial disruption or an invasion of the rights of others. Subsequent cases from the U.S. Supreme Court have curtailed that standard.

Seven states have student free expression laws, including Massachusetts, which has nearly identical language to the Vermont proposal.

“From what I understand, this bill is similar to the one passed in Massachusetts,” White said.

Education committee member Sen. Philip Baruth said the committee heard Sen. White summarize her bill and he supports it, but can’s speak for the rest of the committee. Baruth said the committee chairman has yet to schedule a hearing on the bill. Sen. Kevin Mullin, chair of the education committee, could not be reached for comment.

“There was some concern voiced in the discussion about trying to enter into a principal’s say of his or her students,” Baruth said. “Did the legislature want to step into that arrangement and decorum of the principal-student relationship? There’s a very strong tradition in Vermont of local control and the idea that individual communities want to have control.”

Stephen Dale, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, said his organization has not taken a position on the bill.

The newspaper adviser at Brattleboro Union High School, Nancy Olsen, worked with White when she introduced the 2005 bill and thinks Vermont should go on record as supporting students’ freedom of expression rights.

Olsen said her school has its own student expression policy that leans more toward the Hazelwood standard, which allows administrators greater control over publications.

“Speaking for the policy in my own school, if this bill were to pass and become law, it would guarantee more strongly that the principal would not be able to control content of student media,” Olsen said. “The [existing] policy specifically states that student media is not a public forum, even though we’ve always acted like one.”

Olsen has just one concern with the bill: the phrase “expression shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school.” She said the phrase may leave some wiggle room for administrative control.

“I still think it’s an improvement versus what we have,” Olsen said.

At Middlebury Union High School, officials implemented a new policy for student publications in 2008 after a student’s name and quote were used stating he smoked marijuana before returning to class. Matthew Cox, journalism adviser at Middlebury, said his personal belief is that students should have the freedom to speak, a view based on the real world conditions they will work under later in the profession.

“Why would you subject students in high school to more restrictions on press freedoms than they face when they get out of school and practice journalism professionally?” Cox said. “I came to teaching from practicing journalism and prior review restrictions surprised me. I didn’t even know they existed.”

Helen Smith, executive director of the New England Scholastic Press Association, agrees with Olsen that the bill would be an improvement.

“The most important thing is for kids to take responsibility for their own expression and not have somebody tell them what they can and cannot say,” Smith said. “It [free speech] isn’t only about newspapers and news publications. It’s about cheerleading, about what posters you put up…it’s not just about what you put up online or in the yearbook.”

By Emily Summars, SPLC staff writer

In a joint letter released Monday, the Student Press Law Center and dozens of the nation’s leading free-expression organizations expressed alarm over the forced removal of ethnic-history books from the Tucson, Ariz., schools.

“Students deserve an education that provides exposure to a wide range of topics and perspectives, including those that are controversial,” said the statement, signed by the SPLC and 27 other organizations, including groups representing educators, authors and publishers.

The statement follows a mid-January roundup of banned books ordered by the Tucson Unified School District in response to a state edict. Such widely read and well-regarded titles as Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo Anaya and Rethinking Columbus, edited by Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson, were removed from classrooms and boxed up.

A 2011 Arizona law, HB 2281, prohibits public schools from offering classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

John Huppenthal, Arizona’s state superintendent of public instruction, declared in June that Tucson’s course of study in Mexican-American history violated HB 2281 and threatened to impose financial penalties. In December, a state administrative law judge agreed with Huppenthal. The statute is being challenged as unconstitutional in federal court, but on Jan. 10, a U.S. district judge refused to enter an order blocking enforcement of HB 2281.

Earlier this month, in response to Huppenthal’s threat, the Tucson Unified School District board voted to scrap Mexican-American studies, and school officials seized dozens of titles that were declared to be taboo under HB 2281.

“The Supreme Court has told us repeatedly, as recently as last term, that young people have a constitutional right to receive information that cannot lightly be overridden by the government,” said attorney Frank D. LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. “Banning books is a radical step, and ‘protecting’ students from controversial ideas is never a legally or educationally sound justification for such drastic action.”

The executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, Joan Bertin, called the removal of the books “censorship at its most brazen.” Chris Finan, president of American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said, “Regardless of the outcome of legal proceedings, this is harming students, whose education should be the primary concern of elected officials. Instead they are putting politics and ideology ahead of the well-being of young people.”

The entire letter is viewable here.

Since 1974, the Student Press Law Center has been devoted to educating high school and college journalists about the rights and responsibilities embodied in the First Amendment, and supporting the student news media in covering important issues free from censorship. The Center provides free information and educational materials for student journalists and their teachers on a wide variety of legal topics on its website at www.splc.org.

-30-

“The Hazelwood test, it is true, arose in the context of speech by high school students, not speech by college or graduate students,” Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “But for the same reason this test works for students who have not yet entered high school…, it works for students who have graduated from high school. The key word is student.”

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel comes in the case of Ward v. Polite.

Julea Ward, a graduate student studying to be a counselor, sued after she was expelled from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University when she refused to counsel a gay client as part of a practicum course. She said her religious beliefs prevented her from affirming the client’s sexuality; the school argued she was acting unethically.

By attempting to force Ward into affirming homosexual behavior despite her religious beliefs, her attorneys claimed, the school violated her First Amendment rights.

The appellate court ordered that her case proceed to trial, where a jury will decide whether EMU impermissibly punished Ward for her religious expression. The opinion, however, also includes an analysis of the First Amendment rights of students in curricular settings. According to the opinion, the Supreme Court’s Hazelwood standard governs such speech.

Hazelwood allows schools to control “school-sponsored” student speech based on “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

Adam Goldstein, Student Press Law Center attorney advocate, said extending Hazelwood to colleges is extremely dangerous.

“If they treat this as the law of the circuit,” Goldstein said, “it turns being a student into an infirmity only graduation can cure.”

He said the maturity of high school students was instrumental in the Hazelwood decision. Applying it to colleges and graduate schools, he said, is to treat university students the same as 14-year-olds.

The court did suggest that Hazelwood would apply less stringently to college students because of their maturity level.

“Although it may be reasonable for a principal to delete a story about teenage pregnancy from a high school newspaper, the same could not (likely) be said about a college newspaper,” Sutton wrote in the opinion.

The opinion appears in tension with a 2001 Sixth Circuit case, Kincaid v. Gibson, in which the court rejected Kentucky State University’s confiscation of a college yearbook. The full court held that the yearbook was a public forum and that “Hazelwood has little application to this case.”

The court’s opinion Friday makes no mention of the Kincaid case.

Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defense Fund, one of Ward’s attorneys, said he’s unhappy with Hazelwood’s extension, even though the court’s decision ultimately went in favor of his client.

“Frankly, I’m not a huge fan of Hazelwood being extended to the public university context,” Tedesco said. “I think it’s very clear, though, that student publications at the college level wouldn’t — at least shouldn’t — be governed by Hazelwood, and I don’t think the decision says that at all.”

Mark Boonstra, one of EMU’s attorneys, directed questions to university spokesman Walter Kraft.

“This case is about what is in the best interest of a person who is in need of counseling,” Kraft said in a press release. “…(Ethical standards) require that counselors are not to allow their personal values to intrude into their professional work.”

Kraft declined to comment further.

Ward filed suit in April 2009, and District Court Judge Carem Steeh ruled in the university’s favor in July 2010. Friday’s decision overturns that ruling and returns the case to the district court for a jury trial.

The Sixth Circuit includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The legal precedent applies only to those states.

A similar ruling in Hosty v. Carter prompted a fierce response from student media advocates in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court, covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, found that Hazelwood provides the “starting point” in analyzing student press rights cases.

Illinois passed a state law in 2007 to nullify the impact of Hosty and declare all college publications in Illinois to be “public forums.” Oregon and California have similar protections.

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

The photo of Kenneth Clements, then a senior at Ronald W. Reagan/Doral Senior High School, allegedly appeared in a February 2011 issue of the Reagan Advocate next to a story about sexually transmitted diseases.

The image showed Clements from the shoulders up with an “X” Photoshopped over his mouth, said Harry Shevin, Clements’ attorney.

The school board attorney’s office said the district has not yet received the lawsuit and cannot comment on it.

According to a reproduction provided by Shevin to the Miami New Times, the photo is located in the middle of the story, below the headline “Teens stay quiet about STD’s.”

Shevin alleges that the page, published Feb. 4, 2011, falsely suggested Clements had a sexually transmitted disease.

The original black and white photo shows Clements with a blurred face, but “no one had any trouble figuring out it was him,” Shevin said. Clements was not aware that his photo would be used for the story, was never interviewed and didn’t grant permission for the use of his photo, Shevin said.

“Publication was made with malice toward truth, as the plaintiff was chosen as the poster child for a teen with sexually transmitted disease, even though there was absolutely no basis to conclude he had contracted such a disease,” the complaint reads.

Shevin said the photo ruined the student’s reputation and made him a social outcast.

“The concept of a teenage boy having a sexually transmitted disease is very demoralizing and hampered what should have been the best year of his life,” Shevin said.

The complaint claims the district had a prior review process in which both the adviser and school principal had final approval over content.

Shevin said he is seeking more than $15,000 for the harm done to Clements’ reputation.

“We’re hoping a monetary award will deter others from such recklessness,” Shevin said. “It is the responsibility of the press not to defame people on subjects like this that are clearly out of bounds.”

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said an important defense for the district would be that it followed good First Amendment practices.

He cited a recent Washington State case in which a judge ruled Seattle Public Schools was not liable for a student’s allegedly defamatory newspaper story. The judge held that because the paper was student-edited and school administrators did not censor it, they could not be held responsible for the content. That decision is being appealed.

“The reality is people almost never bring lawsuits about the content of a student newspaper,” LoMonte said. “This happens maybe one to two times a year. It’s extremely rare.”

He said context will be important in the Miami-Dade case.

“The key is going to be the circumstances in which the photo was taken and what a reasonable person looking at the page would think,” LoMonte said. “It’s all about if a reasonable reader would think the photo was an illustration of someone who has an STD.”

By Emily Summars, SPLC staff writer

University Press Editor-in-Chief Mariam Aldhahi said the newspaper learned of the posters Monday morning. Aldhahi referred to them as “hate letters.”

The posters heavily criticized the paper’s advertising, depth of reporting, design choices and journalistic integrity.

“The UP is that teenage girl everyone knows with cheap taste,” the letter reads, “who talks about people behind their backs and is so desperate for attention that she’ll get drunk, strip and say absolutely anything, no matter how wrong or asinine, then vomits on your couch and never apologizes.”

The posters were hung above most newspaper bins on campus and on the floor in front of them, Aldhahi said. The posters were covered in tape, presumably to protect from rain.

Staff members removed the posters after receiving permission from Shannon Clouts, the university’s director of space utilization and analysis. Clouts said her office would have removed them if the UP staff did not.

Between noon and 4 p.m. Monday, “over a thousand” copies of the newspaper were stolen, Aldhahi said. The staff looked around in trash bins nearby, but found no trace of the missing papers.

She said another 1,600 copies were stolen Wednesday after a new issue hit stands Tuesday.

UP, a weekly publication, releases 4,100 copies every Tuesday. Aldhahi said there are usually between 500 and 600 copies left in the bins when the next issue is published.

Student Media Director Michael Gaede said he didn’t want to speculate on who the culprit was, or even if the posters and theft were connected. He said both issues were among the most well-done he has seen.

Aldhahi filed a police report with the campus police Monday. She said the staff is working with police to catch who is responsible.

UP staff members began preemptively collecting the remaining papers Wednesday so they could redistribute them later.

These two incidents mark the third and fourth times that UP has had its papers stolen in recent years. Last time, Aldhahi said, the thief was trying to protect a faculty member from scrutiny.

No one has taken responsibility. Aldhahi and Gaede said they intend to press charges if police catch the person responsible.

University police Lt. Larry Ervin said investigators have leads, but there are no suspects. He declined to elaborate.

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

A group of offended students and basketball coach Jack Keefer brought the Twitter accounts to the attention of principal Brett Crousore last week. According to the Indianapolis Star, tweets from the accounts were sexually and racially charged. One of them read, “I love it when girls wear those black yoga pants,” according to the Star.

Of the four students involved, two students used school equipment during class to create the fake accounts, district spokeswoman Sharon Smith said.

One student created an account outside of class. Another student is outside of the Lawrence Township school district. It is up to that student’s district to rule on the appropriate action, Smith said.

The three students attending school in Lawrence Township are being suspended, Smith said. Two who used school equipment to produce the accounts are being recommended for expulsion. The other student who created an account at home is being suspended on the charge of cyberbullying, Smith said.

“The students used school property to generate the Twitter accounts and as a result they violated the Acceptable Use Policy,” Smith said.

Crousore declined to comment on the disciplined students or the bullying charges. According to the bullying policy available on the district’s website, bullying is by a student against another student with intent to harm. Crousore declined comment on whether another of the tweets were about other students.

The district’s computer use policy states that technology is not to be used for “harmful matter.”

Harmful matter is described as any action or information that is not enhancing the scholastic experience, including using the district’s Internet access for anything “other than educational purposes.”

Crousore said the policy is in every student handbook.

“Teachers monitor technology use in the classroom,” Crousore said. “We have a technology person that can link into any computer that is being used at our school at any time. The kids logged on through one class and created a Twitter account and then re-accessed the account. After that, most was done through their phones.”

A statement issued to families and students said Lawrence North monitors the use of technology in school through the use of filters and firewalls.

Filters at the school don’t block Twitter because it’s not supposed to be blocked, Crousore said.

“We use Twitter for other means. I tweet scholarships, our counselors send information and so do our teachers,” Crousore said. “It’s another way to communicate with our students and our families so people can keep track of the positive things that are taking place in our schools.”

If the disciplined students choose to file suit, Kenneth Falk, legal director for the ACLU in Indiana, said a minimum requirement for discipline would be that the accounts were disruptive.

“The law is unclear as to how to deal with out-of-school activity that enters the school through electronic media,” Falk said. “The basic rules from Tinker back in the late ‘60s is that students have a First Amendment right except to the extent that what they engage in is disruptive to the educational environment…. The question is, what standards should apply?”

Tinker v. Des Moines, the U.S. Supreme Court case referenced by Falk, went in favor of students who were suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The case established that school officials may not punish student speech unless it is disruptive to normal school activities or invades the rights of others.

Falk said the courts are struggling with out-of-school social media activity that affects school districts, like Lawrence North’s fake Twitter accounts.

Falk sued another Indiana district after several students were punished for suggestive photos they posted on Facebook outside of school. In August, a federal judge sided with the students, but has not yet decided how much the school district will have to pay in damages.

By Emily Summars, SPLC staff writer

Missouri House Bill 1229, sponsored by Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Pacific, would allow college students to record lectures for their “individual use,” as long as the student isn’t making money from it.

“People have tax dollars going into these institutions,” Curtman said. “I think it’s reasonable that a student should have the freedom to record things that are going on in a classroom.”

Stephen Owens, interim president of the University of Missouri’s four-campus system, ordered Dec. 20 that students be prohibited from sharing recordings with anyone not registered for the class in which they are made. Those found in violation of the rule can face discipline from the university. Owens said the goal was “to foster a safe environment for learning,” according to the order.

The executive order followed conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s publication of a video depicting footage from two classrooms on the St. Louis and Kansas City campuses. The video portrayed the professors as pro-union extremists.

Charles Davis, an MU journalism professor and media law expert, said the main problem with Owens’ order is that it limits newsgathering in classrooms, which he points out are public forums in public schools.

“It’s a solution looking for a problem,” Davis said. “There is no problem.”

Rep. Curtman said he introduced the bill after some of his constituents, who are students themselves, brought the issue to his attention. His concern is that Owens’ order could limit students who use classroom recordings as study aids.

Since newsworthy events are part of a college journalist’s studies, Curtman said he thinks student journalists would benefit from the bill. Publishing an event recorded in a classroom would probably fall under that student’s “individual use,” Curtman said.

Davis has concerns over the bill’s wording.

“I kind of like it; it doesn’t go far enough, unless ‘such student’s individual use’ could be seen to include journalism. Which I guess it could, if it’s a student journalist,” Davis said. “What I don’t want to see is restrictions on newsgathering in the name of making a ‘safe environment’ for us to talk to each other in a classroom.”

Curtman said he understands both sides of the argument. Some professors are concerned about protecting their intellectual property in classrooms. Some students, he added, may also be concerned that their ability to “freely express their ideas” is compromised by the thought that someone is recording them.

Davis rejected those arguments, and said a restriction on the use of recording devices in the digital age is simply “never going to happen.”

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said he’s glad the legislature is planning to discuss the issue.

“The university took a mallet to kill a fly,” LoMonte said. “Hopefully we can get to a point of accepting the legitimate republishing of something said in classrooms as journalists.”

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

House Bill 62 follows politically charged controversies in Wisconsin and Virginia over freedom of information requests by conservative groups targeting college faculty members.

The bill would exempt some records created by employees of public colleges and universities. Primarily, the bill targets data acquired through research that has not yet been published. It would also exempt “correspondence or research” regarding public policy issues.

The exemption does not apply to financial or administrative records.

Under the bill, public records custodians could deny a request if it applied to “data or information of a proprietary nature that was produced or collected by or for faculty or staff” prior to it being “publicly released, published or copyrighted.” This would apply to any research even partly funded by a “public institution of higher learning.”

Delegate Sandy Rosenberg, one of the sponsors of the bill, said there is a difference between governmental officials and university employees, despite both being paid by the government.

“They are academics,” he said. “They are not bureaucrats.”

Rosenberg said the bill stems in part from “Climategate,” in which former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann’s emails regarding climate change research were hacked and stolen beginning in November 2009, then publicly presented out of context.

Climate change skeptics falsely alleged that the emails showed scientists smudged their data to falsify findings.

John Curtis, director of research and public policy at the American Association for University Professors, said there’s certainly a debate to be had on the subject.

Even though ethical and legal issues surround the climate research incident, Curtis said it brought to light that “maybe there wasn’t sufficient protection” for university staff members.

“The basic context here,” Curtis said, “is that faculty members should have the ability to carry on a discussion — a conversation, essentially — using email about scholarly issues (and) public policy, without worrying that those emails are going to be taken out of context and used to imply something that really isn’t there.”

Jack Murphy, executive director of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association, said he has concerns with the bill.

“It looks fairly broad to us,” Murphy said. “The way (it is) written, … it might restrict legitimate investigative journalists that are trying to find out things that faculty people have written.”

Curtis understood Murphy’s argument, explaining that the results of research should always be fully disclosed. However, he said publishing “scholarly deliberation” could mean disclosing partly formed or even false hypotheses and leads.

Curtis agreed, however, that the bill might be too broad as written.

Delegate Rosenberg said he wants to begin broadly, then move to more specific wording. Murphy said the MDDC would be working with Rosenberg to address its concerns.

“There are exemptions to the public records law, and in each instance the legislature has decided it is appropriate that this situation is different than the norm,” Rosenberg said. “Therefore, there should be an exemption. These records should not be treated like all other records. We think this is the case here, as well.”

House Bill 62, which was referred to the Health and Government Operations Committee, has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

In a letter to the school district, the organization claims Wegner was accused of violating a bullying policy and was required to meet with administrators without his parents' knowledge.

According to the letter, students were required to remove the page with the column from the newspaper before distributing it in school.

Liberty Counsel also claims the district's bullying policy is unconstitutional.

--------------------

WISCONSIN — A student newspaper is receiving national heat for a recent article on gay adoption, causing administrators to review and reform their prior review policies.

The Hawks Post published two opinion pieces about the issue of gay and lesbian adoption, one in support and one opposed. The more conservative article outraged many, including parent Nick Uttecht, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Uttecht, who is gay, saw the article when one of his children brought it to his attention. Uttecht said the Hawks Post article is “why students commit suicide.”

Todd Carlson, superintendent of Shawano School District, issued a statement last week stating, “There is no intent by the school district to advocate for any of these positions. As a place of learning, Shawano school district strives to cultivate a positive environment for everyone.”

The article did not match the tone of the school district’s mission, Carlson wrote.

The student opposing gay adoption quoted the Bible, calling homosexuality a sin. Uttecht and others are afraid the article encourages bullying and want to know why the piece was allowed to go to press.

The district implemented new guidelines for all schools, “to be sure that all articles are properly reviewed before going to print,” Carlson said in the statement.

The Kettle Moraine Press Association is a scholastic journalism organization based in Wisconsin. KEMPA Executive Director Linda Barrington has free speech concerns about the school’s response.

“I’m so pleased they published the article on this topic and they presented both sides,” Barrington said. “It’s the student newspaper. For the district to react like that, it isn’t reasonable all all. I feel the district is opening themselves up for a lot of problems if they’re going to open it up for prior review.”

Barrington said the student newspaper should remain in the hands of the students, not an administrator. The paper is for students and should be student run, said Barrington.

The old and new guidelines pertaining to student media and printed materials were neither provided by Carlson nor available on the district website. Carlson refused to comment on which district policy was being revised.

Shawano does have a policy on “Teaching about Controversial Issues,” which states, “differences in opinion are a continuing and important part of life in a democratic society.” The policy, according to the website, was approved in January 1999.

“It is, therefore, a responsibility of the school to help young people develop the skills of rational thought that are needed for an objective approach to a study of issues on which people differ,” according to the policy.

The Hawks Post is an English course, not an extracurricular activity.

“When somebody brings to the surface a hurtful sentiment, the best way to respond is by educating,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of Student Press Law Center. “I’m concerned that the result of this controversy is that students will not take charge on editorial pages. It’s much healthier to hash out these issues on the newspaper than in the locker room.”

LoMonte said calling for more censorship is not the answer.

“Be careful when letting the genie out of the censorship bottle because it has a way of turning on you,” LoMonte said.

The newspaper’s adviser, Alicia Hoffman, declined to comment. The student authors could not be reached.

By Emily Summars, SPLC staff writer

Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general, filed a brief on the side of appellant Rocky “Rocky D” Disabato, a radio talk-show host who was denied a public records request from the South Carolina Association of School Administrators.

The records in question concern a debate over federal stimulus funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In August, Circuit Judge G. Thomas Cooper Jr. ruled in favor of SCASA, finding that applying the public records law to SCASA infringes on its members’ First Amendment right not to speak publicly. He also ruled that SCASA is primarily a corporation because it “engages in core political speech and issue advocacy.”

Hall & Bowers, LLC, the law firm representing Disabato, appealed in October to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Wilson’s brief details his belief that Cooper’s ruling should be overturned.

He wrote that FOIA does not violate First Amendment rights because requesting public records is unrelated to suppressing free expression. SCASA falls under the purpose of FOIA to guarantee citizens have access to information about public policy decisions, he argues.

“Accordingly, requiring SCASA to comply with FOIA is consistent with the furtherance of the objectives of (FOIA),” Wilson wrote, “which could not be accomplished otherwise.”

SCASA employees, he continued, are covered under the state’s dental and health plans. The organization also recommends appointments, serves on a state committee and performs other governmental tasks.

“The funding and the functions of SCASA bring the organization well within the definition of a public body,” Wilson wrote.

Keith Powell and Kenneth Childs, attorneys representing SCASA, said they hadn’t had a chance thoroughly to read Wilson’s brief and were unable to comment on the specific points presented in it.

However, Powell said Wilson’s position is not extremely important to the case. They said the state attorney general generally supports the state statute — in this case, FOIA.

“I don’t think there’s anything extraordinary about the fact that the attorney general would want to file a brief and make those points,” Powell said. “It’s not unusual or particularly significant that they would file a brief for a case of this nature.”

Childs agreed, adding that Disabato used FOIA as a “vehicle to harass private organizations.” As a result, it abridged SCASA’s First Amendment rights, he said.

Kevin Hall, one of Disabato’s attorneys, said he hopes the Supreme Court will “remedy” the decision made by the lower court. He believes Wilson’s support will help.

“To have the attorney general intervene on the case, that’s very important,” Hall said. “He’s shown himself to be an ardent supporter of open government and transparency.”

The Student Press Law Center will also file a brief in support of Disabato in the coming weeks.

“If the trial court’s decision holds up, the open records law of South Carolina — and any similar law — is under a cloud of uncertainty,” SPLC Executive Director Frank LoMonte said. “It’s really hard to see how you could ever get open records from a government agency without them complaining it infringes their First Amendment rights.”

LoMonte said he doesn’t expect Cooper’s ruling to hold. He said this case follows a trend of government officials who attempted and failed to “hide behind the First Amendment,” including Michael Carrigan, a city councilman in Sparks, Nev., who claimed he could vote on matters that posed conflicts of interest because of his freedom of speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument in June.

“The fundamental flaw is (the implication) that the government might need protection from the public,” LoMonte said, “and not the other way around.”

By Nick Glunt, SPLC staff writer

The Court declined to hear appeals in three cases involving public school students who were disciplined at school for MySpace pages they created away from campus.

In a pair of Pennsylvania cases, an appeals court upheld the right of two students to create fake MySpace profiles ridiculing their principals.

Justin Layshock, then a 17-year-old high school senior, created a profile mocking Hickory High School principal Eric Trosch in 2005. The page contained a picture of Trosch and embarrassing, made-up answers to biographical questions, with the fictitious Trosch describing himself as a “big steroid freak” and a “big whore.”

Trosch’s daughter, also a student, made him aware of the “parody” profile and several others created by other students.

Layshock later apologized to Trosch, and his parents grounded him and took away his access to their home computer. The school district, however, continued with a formal investigation and found Layshock guilty of violating a number of rules. He received a 10-day, out-of-school suspension and was placed in an alternative education program for the rest of the year. He was also banned from participating in extracurricular activities and his graduation ceremony, despite being classified as a “gifted” student.

Layshock’s parents sued the school district in early 2006, claiming officials violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for the MySpace profile. After the lawsuit was filed, the district agreed to return Layshock to his regular classes, participate in extracurricular activities and attend his graduation ceremony.

The lawsuit continued, however, and in June 2011, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Layshock.

In the second case, an eighth-grade student at Blue Mountain Middle School created a fake profile in 2007 for her principal, James McGonigle.

The profile did not identify McGonigle by name, but contained his picture and a biographical section made up by the student – identified in court documents only as “J.S.” – and her friend.

The profile claimed McGonigle liked to have sex in his office and hit on students and parents. According to the mock profile:

“I love children, sex (any kind), dogs, long walks on the beach, tv, being a dick head, and last but not least my darling wife who looks like a man….”

McGonigle found out about the profile from another student, whom he asked to bring in a print-out of the page. The school’s computers blocked the MySpace.com website and the page was set to be viewable only by “friends.” The student also told him that J.S. created the page, according to court documents.

J.S. and her friend received 10-day, out-of-school suspensions and were banned from school dances. McGonigle also filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania police, who summoned J.S. and her mother to the state police station. No criminal charges were ever filed.

The mother, Terry Snyder, sued on her daughter’s behalf, claiming the punishment violated the First Amendment. In June 2011, the Third Circuit agreed.

Targeting other students?

The final case involves Kara Kowalski, then a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia, who created a group on MySpace in 2005.

The was called “S.A.S.H.” and featured the tagline “No No Herpes, We don’t want no herpes.” Kowalski claims the group is an acronym for “Students Against Sluts Herpes,” and was designed to bring awareness to sexually transmitted diseases. Others believe it stood for “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” referring to “Shay N.” – a fellow student at Musselman.

Kowalski invited about 100 friends to the group, and court documents show about two dozen students joined. One of them, Ray Parsons, soon posted a photo of himself and a friend hold their noses and holding a sign that read “Shay Has Herpes.” Parsons also posted photos of Shay, altered with mock herpes lesions. Other group members, including Kowalski, allegedly responded with approving comments.

According to court documents, Kowalski tried to delete the group after Shay’s parents complained, but was unable to do so. The next morning, Shay and her parents filed a harassment claim at school.

Kowalski ultimately received a five-day, out-of-school suspension, a 90-day ban from most school events, and was barred from the cheerleading team for the rest of the year and disqualified from her position as the school’s reigning “Queen of Charm.”

Kowalski sued, claiming the discipline violated her right to free speech, but in July 2011 the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the punishment.

Courts struggle to apply existing law

The cases were among the first in the nation to address the First Amendment rights of students in cyberspace. The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear appeals in any of the three cases.

The Court has never ruled on the issue, and has addressed the in-school free speech rights of K-12 students only four times in history. Its decision Tuesday leaves the debate over online student speech rights unresolved.

“Given the uniquely unsympathetic facts of these cases, I think you have to count this as a victory for student rights,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. “Sometimes it’s a win just to live to fight another day.”

Central to the debate is how the court’s 1969 landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District should apply in today’s digital world. In that case, the Court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war. The justices declared that students have the right to express themselves, except when they create a “material and substantial” disruption of school or invade the rights of others.

Three subsequent cases have created exceptions to that rule, allowing schools to discipline lewd and vulgar speech, and speech that advocates illegal drug use. The Court has also held that administrators can regulate “school-sponsored” speech such as plays and some student newspapers more freely, needing only to show that they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so.

Lower courts have struggled to apply those cases to situations where students speak outside of school but about school issues or people. Some argue that modern technology has made distinctions between on- and off-campus speech meaningless, while others insist students should retain full First Amendment freedom when they leave campus.

In Layshock and J.S., the Third Circuit declined to decide whether Tinker should apply to off-campus speech. Rather, it found that even assuming the standard does apply, not enough of a disruption was created in the J.S. case to justify the punishment. It ruled 8-6 in favor of the student. In the Layshock case, the judges unanimously sided with the student, finding that the school had not challenged a lower-court finding that the speech was not disruptive.

The appeals court, sitting en banc with all of its judges participating, seemed to be in agreement that the exception to Tinker for lewd and vulgar speech should not apply away from school. Six of the judges argued that Tinker should be the standard for analyzing disputes about off-campus speech, while five countered that it should not – that students have the same speech rights away from school as do adults in the community at large. Neither position, however, gained enough support on the 14-member court to create a majority.

By contrast, the Fourth Circuit in Kowalski did decide that Tinker applies to off-campus speech – and became the first appeals court to do so. There, a three-judge panel unanimously held that Kowalski’s group, aimed at another student, created a substantial disruption that warranted discipline.

Lawyers react

Adam Charnes, attorney for Kowalski, said he was disappointed the high court refused to take up the case.

“It’s clear under the Fourth Circuit precedent that the school has full authority to discipline students for their speech that is made outside of the school and that has nothing to do with the school," Charnes said. "And that’s not only internet speech, but also the school can discipline them for comments they make at the mall or a sleepover at someone’s house or anyplace else -- as long as the school can basically speculate without evidence that there might be copycat behavior or other effects on school grounds.”

Amy Smith, who represented the school district before the high court, said she was pleased with the Court's move. She encouraged school officials to read the Fourth Circuit opinion.

Charnes said the case — binding only in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia — greatly expanded school authority and needs to be addressed by the justices.

LoMonte agreed, but said the Court should take up future cases involving more substantive speech.

"It's very clear that the Tinker rule is the wrong rule for off-campus speech," he said.

While the Kowalski case is officially over, the Pennsylvania cases will return to the lower courts. A judge will decide how much the Blue Mountain School District owes in damages in the J.S. case, and how much the districts in both cases owe in attorney fees.

Vic Walczak, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania who represented the students in both cases, said the fees will be substantial. Justin Layshock's case has been litigated for nearly six years, in which time Layshock has gone from being a high school senior to a college graduate now working in the insurance field, Walczak said.

"He told me that he was surprised at how moved he was, even though this is such a distant thing, it still really moved him to know that he finally won the case," Walczak said.

Mary Catherine Roper, also with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, declined to comment on her clients from the J.S. case.

Walczak said he was pleased with Tuesday's developments but recognizes the Court will have to weigh in eventually.

"This is an issue that needs Supreme Court guidance," he said. "They probably should take one of these cases sooner rather than later."

By Brian Schraum, SPLC staff writer

The managing editor for digital news at National Public Radio and an award-winning journalist and former high school journalism adviser have been elected to the Student Press Law Center’s Board of Directors.

The new board members are Mark Stencel, who is responsible for overseeing all content on NPR.org and the network’s other online platforms, and Mary Stapp, who taught journalism at the largest public school in Washington, D.C., and co-advised the school’s student newspaper.

The Student Press Law Center (SPLC) is a Washington, D.C.-area non-profit whose mission is to advocate for free-press rights for high school and college journalists. It also provides legal information and referral assistance at no charge to students and the educators who work with them.

“I am delighted to welcome Mary and Mark to the Board, and I am especially pleased that they each bring a lifelong of involvement in student journalism to the SPLC's work,” said Mark Stodder, an executive with Minneapolis-based Dolan Company and chairman of the SPLC Board of Directors. “In Mary, we have a colleague who can speak directly to the adversity and challenges that advisers face daily in the classroom, and in Mark, we have a colleague who has been at the forefront of digital media innovation. They are both highly respected in their fields, and they will be superb and committed advocates for the rights of students everywhere.”

Stencel, a graduate of the University of Virginia, formerly served as the executive editor and deputy publisher at GOVERNING, a monthly magazine and website written for leaders in state and local government published by Congressional Quarterly. He served as a managing editor at CQ, where he helped lead one of the largest news staffs on Capitol Hill, coordinating daily coverage of Congress, online and in print.

Stencel began his career at the Washington Post as an assistant to syndicated columnist David S. Broder and as a researcher for the newspaper's national politics staff. After a stint as a science and technology correspondent for The News & Observer in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, Stencel returned to the Post in 1996 to help launch the company's first website, PoliticsNow.

In addition to his work as an editor, Stencel was a vice president at the Post Company's online division, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, where he directed the business side of early mobile and multimedia efforts and managed content partnerships and projects with other news organizations, online publishers and mobile phone carriers and device makers.

Stapp taught journalism at Wilson High School in Washington, D.C. from January 2008 through June 2011, and co-advised the school’s student newspaper, The Beacon.

After earning a Bachelor’s degree in English from University of Miami in 1985, Stapp began her journalistic career writing for the Miami News, and wrote for local publications such as South Florida Magazine, Miami Today and New Times before becoming an architecture critic for The Fort Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel in 1987. Before moving to Washington, D.C., in 1990, she covered ports and international trade for the International Business Chronicle.

While raising three daughters in Washington, D.C., with her husband, author Joel Achenbach, she freelanced stories and worked as a research assistant for a variety of book, television and grant-writing projects.

The new members were elected unanimously by electronic ballot, and will begin their work with the SPLC’s Jan. 27 Board meeting. Leaving the Board due to term limits are Robert Garcia of NPR and Jerry Ceppos of the Louisiana State University Manship School of Communications.

The Board also re-elected to three-year terms three incumbent members: attorneys Pat Carome of Washington, D.C., Mike Godwin from San Francisco, and Laura Lee Prather of Houston. The SPLC’s 15-member all-volunteer board includes representatives from the journalism, legal, education, philanthropic and nonprofit management fields.

Since 1974, the Student Press Law Center has been devoted to educating high school and college journalists about the rights and responsibilities embodied in the First Amendment, and supporting the student news media in covering important issues free from censorship. The Center provides free information and educational materials for student journalists and their teachers on a wide variety of legal topics on its website at www.splc.org.

-30-

The Court heard arguments in the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations, involving the Federal Communications Commission’s attempts to regulate “indecent” material over the airwaves. It stems from two brief uses of profanity during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, and an episode of ABC’s NYPD Blue that showed actress Charlotte Ross’s bare buttocks for seven seconds.

The stations are asking the high court to strike down the FCC’s indecency policy as unconstitutional. Some are even urging the Court to overturn its landmark “seven dirty words” decision, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and grant broadcasters free speech rights identical to other media. At oral arguments Tuesday, however, several justices seemed inclined to rule narrowly.

“Does this case in front of us really call for the earthshaking decision that you all have argued for in the briefs?” Associate Justice Stephen Breyer asked.

Attorneys for the Fox and ABC stations conceded the Court could rule in their favor without disturbing Pacifica, simply holding that the FCC’s existing indecency policy is too vague to stand.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia were the government’s most vocal supporters during arguments. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by contrast, appeared most sympathetic to the broadcasters’ concerns.

“We want the King's English -- for the very children we're talking about, when they go on the street, when their big brother says something to them… the expletives are in common parlance today,” Ginsburg said. “I think that children are not going to be shocked by them the way they might have been a generation ago.”

The one-hour arguments were also marked by several exchanges that caused the courtroom to briefly erupt in laughter. Seth Waxman, representing the ABC stations, mentioned that the FCC is currently addressing complaints involving a nude statue from broadcasts of the Olympic games. At one point, Waxman began pointing out similar statues on the courtroom walls.

“Right over here, Justice Scalia,” Waxman said. “Well, there's a bare buttock there, and there's a bare buttock here. And there may be more that I hadn't seen. But frankly, I had never focused on it before. But the point—”

“Me neither,” Scalia interjected.

Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan observed that the number of people receiving over-the-air broadcasts has continued to decline, with Alito claiming it won’t be long before it “goes the way of vinyl records and 8-track tapes.”

“So why not let this die a natural death? Or why do you want us to intervene?” Alito asked of Carter Phillips, counsel for the Fox stations.

Those urging the Court to overturn Pacifica have tried to undercut the 1974 case’s two main rationales for allowing the government to regulate material in broadcasting that it could not punish in other media. The Court held then that the lesser standard is justified by broadcasting’s uniquely “pervasive” nature and unique accessibility to young people.

The FCC, represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, argued those rationales are still relevant despite the rise of cable television and the Internet.

The TV stations argue that even if Pacifica stands, the FCC’s policy in recent years allowing fines for even brief nudity or profanity is unconstitutional. They claim the FCC’s practices give them no clear warning as to what may be considered indecent and what may not.

Verrilli countered that Pacifica requires the FCC to take into account the overall context of the broadcast, which is “going to result in something less than absolute precision.”

The Student Press Law Center filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case, joined by College Broadcasters, Inc.

The justices gave no clear indication how the Court might rule. Only eight of the justices are participating – Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused herself – creating the possibility of 4-4 tie vote. In the event of a tie, the lower court decisions in favor of the broadcasters will stand.

An opinion in the Fox case is expected sometime before July.

By Brian Schraum, SPLC staff writer

Kelly Short filed the federal lawsuit two months after the district placed her on suspension in November. Short advised the student newspaper and yearbook at Jeffersonville High School, along the Indiana-Kentucky border near Louisville. She has been a teacher there since 1994.

Dan Canon, Short’s attorney, said administrators suspended her “pending an investigation into some very vague allegations about mismanagement of the yearbook, some of which supposedly happened in 2008.”

A school district spokeswoman said the district had no comment because of the pending litigation.

In the suit, Short alleges the real reason stems from a year of tension with principal James Sexton over student expression rights. The 2010-2011 school year was Sexton’s first as principal there and Short’s first as newspaper adviser.

The conflict began in late 2010 or early 2011, when the student newspaper, The Hyphen, published a story about new security cameras at the school. The story claimed the system cost $20,000 and that Sexton had four plasma television monitors installed in his office, former editor Stephon Moore said in a June 2011 interview with the Student Press Law Center.

Short and Moore concede the actual cost of the system was much lower, and the paper printed a front-page correction in the following issue. Short said Sexton made his displeasure with the story known.

Moore said the paper then ran a story about the school’s In-School Adjustment Program, which students can be sent to for disciplinary problems. According to the story, students sent to ISAP would sit and do nothing, and some students intentionally had themselves sent there at certain times during the day.

Moore said following the controversial coverage, Sexton began taking away privileges from the newspaper staff. They could no longer access class schedules to find and interview students, and they were no longer allowed to leave campus to collect advertising money or contracts, Moore said.

Sexton also allegedly began asking to review the newspaper prior to publication – something the students resisted. Short was not made available for comment Thursday, but in a July 2011 interview with the SPLC said she also opposed prior review.

“I said that it wasn’t up to me if the paper was prior reviewed because it is a student publication, and that the students – it was their decision,” she said.

The tension boiled over in December 2010, when Sexton came into the newspaper class and announced Short had given the students “bad information” about him. According to Moore, Short and an email from Sexton attached to the lawsuit, Sexton claimed Short mistakenly told students he was placed on an “improvement plan” by the district.

“This type of rumor building is certainly detrimental to what I personally am trying to accomplish here at Jeff High,” Sexton wrote in the email. “I do not appreciate your involvement in bad information surrounding me or any staff member here at our high school.”

Moore said Thursday that the newspaper never wrote anything about Sexton being on an improvement plan. Moore also said he never heard Short mention anything about it.

Short later filed a formal grievance against Sexton over the incident. Canon said nothing came of it.

On June 14, Sexton notified Short by email that she would no longer be the yearbook adviser after that year’s book was finished. Short said she met with district officials along with a union representative to argue that her removal violated a collective bargaining agreement. She was notified the following month that she would continue as yearbook adviser.

A few days later, on July 18, Sexton sent Short two written “directives” for the newspaper and yearbook. According to the letters, attached to Short’s lawsuit, the Hyphen was no longer to be considered a “forum” for student expression, and would be subject to prior review by administrators.

The directives also listed a series of specific requirements for the yearbook – such that it have the school colors “very prominent” on the outside covers, have an index of students and staff and distinguish between sports seasons. The yearbook would also be prior reviewed by an administrator.

On Aug. 12, Canon sent a letter to Sexton on behalf of Short. It claimed the directives were unconstitutional and demanded Sexton rescind them.

Short was formally suspended Nov. 9.

The lawsuit claims the suspension is in retaliation for her opposition to prior review and support of students’ right to free expression. It claims the district violated her First Amendment rights and Indiana’s “whistleblower” law, which protects public employees who report wrongdoing.

Zoie Avery, currently co-editor-in-chief of the Hyphen, said interactions with administrators have improved over time, though the newspaper is now under prior review. Avery said an assistant principal, the new adviser and another teacher read through the paper with her before it is sent to press. She said there have been no major disputes so far and is happy with the new adviser.

“It’s disappointing that it’s gone this far,” Avery said, “but if she really feels that it’s necessary then – I know Short on a personal level and she’s a good person.”

Wes Scott, an English teacher at Jeffersonville High, has been advising the newspaper since Short’s suspension. Scott is a Jeffersonville alumnus and former Hyphen staff member, and has journalism experience, according to Production Manager Emily Couch.

Short wants her job back, unspecified damages, and a declaration that the new publications policies are unconstitutional.

“I just am very upset,” Short told the SPLC in July. “I just feel like he (Sexton) doesn’t appreciate me as a professional. My first concern is always the kids, my second concern is ethics and responsible journalism. My ego is so far down that list, that’s not even a thought.”

By Brian Schraum, SPLC staff writer; Emily Gerston contributed to this report

Paul Isom said he was terminated Wednesday in what he believes is a response to student editors’ decision to run the photo. Isom said he returned to his office shortly after 11 a.m. to find two unexpected guests – his direct supervisor, Director of Marketing and Communications Chris Stansbury, and a representative from human resources.

He said they initially gave him four hours to clean out his office and leave campus.

“They said that I would get severance and my final paycheck at the end of the month,” Isom said.

Isom said he received no explanation other than that they “wanted to move in a different direction.”

Isom has been an adviser at ECU since 2008, and first began advising college publications in 1994. He served as director of student media at ECU, overseeing all campus student media outlets and directly advising three of them, including the East Carolinian newspaper.

On Nov. 8, the newspaper published a full-frontal photo of a streaker who ran onto the field during that weekend’s home football game. The decision prompted outcry from some readers and from university administrators who said it was “in very poor taste.”

“We will be having conversations with those who were involved in this decision in an effort to make it a learning experience,” said Virginia Hardy, vice chancellor for student affairs, in a statement shortly after the photo was published. “The goal will be to further the students’ understanding that with the freedom of the press comes a certain level of responsibility about what is appropriate and effective in order to get their message across.”

Isom said he was told a “team of administrators” was involved in the decision to fire him and that it was approved by the university’s legal counsel, but that the ultimate decision came from Stansbury.

Neither Stansbury nor a university spokeswoman immediately returned calls seeking comment. East Carolinian Editor-in-Chief Caitlin Hale also did not immediately return a call for comment.

Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said Isom’s firing raises serious First Amendment concerns.

“There’s no camouflaging what this is, which is retaliation for an editorial judgment made by the students that was completely within the students’ authority to make,” LoMonte said. “They’re clearly punishing the adviser for something he not only didn’t control, but legally couldn’t control.”

Isom said he has no problem fighting his termination, and isn’t ruling out legal action against the university.

“If I was not willing to stand up for a First Amendment issue, then I wouldn’t have been advising them the way that I was advising them,” he said. “I would have told them, ‘Yeah, don’t run any controversial pictures, don’t make anybody mad.’”

The editors may have a First Amendment claim of their own, LoMonte said. Students generally have broader free speech rights than employees at public universities.

“I think it’s absolutely incumbent on the college to come forward with some lawful explanation – if they can,” LoMonte said. “They owe it to the students to demonstrate that this is not retaliation for a lawful editorial content decision. If they can’t do that, then they’re not just in violation of the law but they’re acting way outside of the mainstream of what we expect from a public university.”

Isom, now unemployed, said he initially felt stunned and disappointed and is now unsure what the future holds.

“It’s mixed, it’s a little scary. How am I going to earn a living? Right at this moment, I don’t know.”

By Brian Schraum, SPLC staff writer