In April 2003, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the campus press in the case of Hosty v. Governors State University. Since October 31, 2000, when Governors State officials demanded prior review of the Innovator newspaper, no issue of the paper has been published.
More about the Governors State University case
More College Press Information:
The Student Press Law Center is the leading group devoted to student freedom of the press, with information on current threats to the student press, and legal resources.
Censoring the College Press, essay by John K. Wilson (2002)
2001-02 college press censorship, report by John K. Wilson (2002)
1995 TDC Report on Academic Freedom: Censoring the Student Press
The Campus Alternative Journalism Project at the Independent Press Association helps organize progressive college papers, has a guide for student papers, and holds an annual contest.
Listing of progressive alternative college newspapers (Campus Alternative Journalism Project)
The Collegiate Network at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute finances and supports conservative newspapers.
KEY CASES ON COLLEGE MEDIA AND THE LAW
*Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). Supreme Court ruled that high schools can regulate "style and content" of school-sponsored student expression "as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” However, the Court did not address college newspapers.
*Kincaid v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2001). Ruling that Hazelwood did not apply to college publications, the federal appeals court ordered Kentucky State University to distribute the 1992-94 yearbook which it had seized because of its content, color, and theme.
CENSORSHIP
Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 613 (M.D. Ala. 1967): Editor of the Troy State University student paper, printed “censored” in place of an editorial criticizing the state legislature and governor, which had been censored by the advisor and president. The president suspended him from the university for “insubordination.” A U.S. District Court ordered him reinstated as a student and declared that the rule against criticism of state officials was “unreasonable.”
Norton v. Discipline Committee, 419 F.2d 195 (6th Cir. 1969). Students expelled for distributing “false, seditious and inflammatory” literature at East Tennessee State University. Courts upheld the dismissal because the pamphlets told students to “stand up and fight” and could cause substantial disruption.
Korn v. Elkins, 317 F. Supp. 138 (1970). The Argus magazine at the University of Maryland at College Park was banned by the university from publishing an issue with a burning American flag pictured on the cover, fearing it might violate state flag desecration laws. The court ruled that the University could not prohibit publication of a flag burning picture.
Channing Club v. Board of Regents of Texas Tech, 317 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Texas 1970). Texas Tech University prohibited the distribution of the Catalyst newspaper on campus because it used “lewd, indecent, and vulgar language.” The court overruled this as a violation of equal protection because similar words could be found in newspapers and books allowed at the university.
Trujillo v. Love, 322 F. Supp. 1266 (D. Colo. 1971). The managing editor of The Arrow at Southern Colorado State University was suspended from her position after disagreeing with the advisor about censorship. The court ordered her reinstated, despite the university’s funding of the paper, because “the state is not necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates.”
Bazaar v. Fortune, 476 F.2d 570, 489 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1973). The court ruled that four-letter words did not alone justify censorship, the funding and facilities by the University of Mississippi for the student literary magazine, Images, did not give the power to censor, and a college could not be held responsible or liable for the content of student publications, even if the magazine had a faculty advisor: “The university is clearly an arm of the state and this single fact will always distinguish it from the purely private publisher as far as censorship rights are concerned."
*Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973). A graduate student distributed an underground newspaper with the word “motherfucker” in a headline and a political cartoon showing a policeman raping the Statue of Library and the Goddess of Justice. Papish was expelled from the university for distributing a newspaper “containing forms of indecent speech.” The U.S. Supreme Court ordered her reinstated: “The mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’”
PRIOR REVIEW
Antonelli v. Hammond, 308 F. Supp. 1329 (D. Mass. 1970). The Fitchburg State College newspaper won a suit against the president who required prior approval of the paper by a two-person faculty advisory committee and refused to release the money for a particular issue because he disagreed with the content. The court ruled that administrators cannot require prior review and censor expression in the name of stopping obscenity.
FUNDING
Joyner v. Whiting, 447 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1973). The president of North Carolina Central University withdrew funding from the paper after it editorialized against integrating white students into the historically black college. The court ruled: “Censorship of constitutionally protected expression cannot be imposed by suspending the editors, suppressing circulation, requiring imprimatur of controversial articles, excising repugnant materials, withdrawing financial support, or asserting any other form of censorial oversight based on the institution’s power of the purse.”
Arrington v. Taylor, 380 F.Supp. 1348 (M.D.N.C. 1974), affirmed 526 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1975); also Kania v. Fordham, 702 F.2d 475 (4th Cir. 1983). University of North Carolina students did not want student fee money to subsidize the Daily Tar Heel. The court found that the paper did not speak for the entire student body or inhibit other expression, and therefore student fees could not be withheld.
Stanley v. Magrath, 719 F.2d 279 (8th Cir. 1983). After attacks on the University of Minnesota Daily for a humor issue, the administration made its fee allocation refundable for students. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to reduce financial support for the paper as a form of punishment.
Gay and Lesbian Students Assn. V. Gohn, 850 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1988). Student senate denied funds to a group that provided education about homosexuality. The court ruled, “The University need not supply funds to student organizations; but once having done so, it is bound by the First Amendment to act without regard to the content of the ideas being expressed.”
*Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia,515 U.S. 819 (1995). The University of Virginia refused to use student fees to pay for a Wide Awake Productions Christian student magazine because it was a religious activity that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." The Supreme Court ruled, “the student publication is not a religious institution….It is instead a publication involved in a pure forum for the expression of ideas, ideas that would be both incomplete and chilled were the Constitution to be interpreted to require that state officials and courts scan the publication to ferret out views that principally manifest a belief in a divine being.”
*Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000). U.S. Supreme Court rejected the efforts of conservative groups to ban mandatory fees for controversial student organizations, the Court ruled that public colleges must create a viewpoint neutral mechanism for distribution of student fees.
QUALITY
Schiff v. Williams, 519 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1975). Three paid student editors of the Florida Atlantic University newspaper were fired by the president for low quality, poor grammar, misspellings, “vilification and rumor mongering,” and “immature and unsophisticated diatribes.” The court ordered their reinstatement, even if the poor quality of the paper “could embarrass, and perhaps bring some element of disrepute to the school.”
ADVERTISING
Lee v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 441 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir. 1971). Court ruled that a campus newspaper could not refuse to accept an editorial advertisement.
Mississippi Gay Alliance v. Goudelock, 536 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1976). The court upheld the right of a student newspaper at Mississippi State University to refuse an ad from a gay counseling service.
Texas Review Society v. Cunningham, 659 F.Supp. 1239 (W.D. Tex. 1987). A federal district court overruled a UT Austin rule preventing students from distributing papers that included paid ads, which violated university distribution rules.
Sinn v. Daily Nebraskan, 829 F.2d 662 (8th Cir. 1987). Court refused to order the University of Nebraska newspaper to run newspaper ads for roommates that mentioned their sexual orientation, upholding the right of editors to reject an ad.
Lueth v. St. Clair County Community College, 732 F.Supp. 1410 (E.D. Mich. 1990). The former editor of the student newspaper sued the college for banning ads for a nude-dancing club. The court ruled that the college failed to have “narrowly tailored” advertising guidelines to limit its regulation of advertising.
Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996). Court upheld the right of The Brief at the City University of New York at Queens College (CUNY) law school to reject an ad from an alumnus because they feared that the ad (asking for information to “discredit” certain faculty and help sue the school) could lead to a defamation lawsuit.
Pitt News case (2000). Court upholds Pennsylvania law banning on alcohol ads in any college newspaper.
LIBEL
Wallace v. Weiss, 372 N.Y.S.2d. 416 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975). The court refused to dismiss a libel claim against the University of Rochester because: “The university, by furnishing and providing to the organization money, space and in lending its name, may well be responsible for the acts of the organization, at least insofar as the university has the power to exercise control. By assisting the organization in its activities, it cannot avoid responsibility by refusing to exercise control or by delegating that control to another student organization.”
Mazart v. State, 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1981). Two students at the State University of New York at Binghamton sued for libel over a false letter sent to the Pipe Dream newspaper. The court concluded that the university could not be held liable for what the newspaper printed because of “the university's lack of control over the newspaper,” even though the newspaper received student fee funding, a faculty adviser, free office space, and school credit for work on the newspaper.
Milliner v. Turner, 436 S.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983). Two faculty at Southern University sued the editors of the campus newspaper for libel because editorials called them “racist” and a “proven fool.” The state appellate court overturned a trial court, ruling that the school could not be held responsible for libel.
Gallo v. Princeton University, 656 A.2d. 1267 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1995). The court ruled that administrators had a qualified privilege to report on a matter of public concern, and that statements made by reporters for “independent University publications are not attributable to Princeton and its administrators.”
Lentz v. Clemson University, No. 95-CP-39-66 (S. Car. Ct. of Common Pleas, 1995). “There is overwhelming authority across the country in support of the position that a public university which does not censor or otherwise control the content of a school-sponsored newspaper is not liable for what is published by the students in the student-run newspaper."
McEvaddy v. City University of New York, 663 N.Y.S.2d. 4 (1995). Libel claim dismissed: “The presence of a faculty advisor to the paper, whose advice was nonbinding, and the financing of the paper through student activity fees dispensed by defendant, do not demonstrate such editorial control or influence over the paper by defendant as to suggest an agency relationship.”