Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 02/16/1998 All articles from this issue

Censorship incident at LAHS has no legal grounding

printer friendly version

By David L. Grey

Media Watch

Censorship. For many in our democratic society, this is one of the most ugly of C words; for others it is, at times, one of the more necessary.

Los Altos High School editors at the Talon student newspaper ran into the latter interpretation Feb. 13 when Principal David Brazer ordered removal of a page 1 picture. In return, staffers have protested the censorship and vowed to keep fighting - or at least challenging - school administrators.

For the Town Crier news story on this incident and ensuing debate, see Page 17.

All this might be fleeting if it were not for the heady implications, both real and potential, of actions and reactions of all parties. Censorship is not a passing event; it is an attitude, a legacy, in this case, of a suppressed picture.

The Los Altos High-inspired prank that generated the news story plus picture was rearranged marquee letters - to wit: "MV SPARTANS BLOW GOATS!"

It was already briefly on public display. The picture captured the words, as did the story.

So what gives? To paraphrase school administrators, the picture of the marquee was at least vulgar, a glorification of the the pranksters' act, and perhaps inciting retaliations or threats to campus(es).

In addition, there developed concern about where the picture came from and that using it implied a staged event.

Maybe. But the courts, including the U.S. Supreme, and the California Education Code, Section 48907 on student free expression, suggest these are not convincing censorship justifications.

The newsy words in context likely are offensive, but in the eyes and words of nearly all beholders, judges, juries and dictionaries, they would not be "obscene." Obscenity is part of the code's legal test and applies both to the picture and the story.

Glorifying, magnifying - whatever - is nowhere in the code or any relevant law or court ruling that I can find as valid grounds for suppressing any contemporary free expression.

And inciting possible further action requires compelling phrases such as "clear and present danger" and future "unlawful acts." Some might say the ban was protective safeguarding; others might say it was administrative overkill. There is not much in between.

Libel or slander (also possible conditions for some legal restraint) are, of course, not justifications here at all.

So what are the issues? Judgment, differences of opinion, roles, perceptions and generations. Even the U.S. Supreme Court. It ruled in 1969 that student First Amendment rights "do not stop at the schoolhouse gate." This was modified, for some overruled, in a 1988 case involving a high school-run newspaper near St. Louis.

This might be precedent except California has provided students with even broader protections than at the federal level under the First Amendment. As our state constitution states: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or of the press."

"Abuse" here? You weigh it. But "misuse," at varying lesser levels, seems a more appropriate standard for all involved.

David L. Grey, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of journalism at San Jose State University where for 24 years he taught and did research on media law and ethics. He is a Mountain View resident.