A case heard in a Washington state court may hinge on whether school officials and teachers should exercise more control over the content of student newspapers. Washington law discourages authorities from interfering with the lawful content in student newspapers. -db
Student Press Law Center
April 21, 2010
By Mike Hiestand
WASHINGTON — “This case is not about whether you didn’t like this article or thought the topic was not appropriate [for a high school student newspaper]….This case is about the evidence and about the law,” said Seattle attorney Mike Patterson, representing Puyallup School District.
After nearly two weeks of testimony, lawyers in the dispute involving Emerald Ridge High School’s student newspaper, The Jagwire, presented their closing arguments Tuesday to the six men and seven women (including one alternate) being asked to decide whether students named in an article that discussed the students’ sexual histories were unlawfully harmed by the story and whether the school district was at fault in allowing its publication.
Close to a dozen attorneys and legal assistants representing the parties shuffled papers, PowerPoint presentations and court exhibits in the Tacoma, Wash., courtroom, which had to be closed to some observers in the morning after students, parents, journalism teachers and others who had come to watch the trial’s final day exceeded the room’s fire capacity.
The four Emerald Ridge High School students and their parents, many of whom were present in the courtroom for closing arguments, are suing the Puyallup School District on multiple claims including invasion of privacy, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the past, the plaintiffs had collectively sought between $16 million and $32 million in damages, though Tuesday their attorney suggested that the jury award all parties a figure closer to about $5 million.
The issue began after a series of articles on the topics of sexual intercourse and oral sex among students was published in the February 2008 issue of Emerald Ridge High School’s newspaper, The JagWire.
The suit claims the four students quoted in the articles did not give permission to The JagWire to publish their names and “private details” of their “sexual lives.”
“This is a cultural case,” said John Connelly, of Tacoma, Wash., who is representing the students and their parents. During his closing statement, which lasted about 90 minutes, he told the jury that society was not ready for a student newspaper that published the names of students who had admitted to engaging in oral sex.
It defies “common sense,” he said.
He also criticized school district officials and the paper’s adviser for going out of their way to distance themselves from the student paper and allowing student editors to determine its content.
“There has been a tremendous effort in this case to avoid accountability,” Connelly said.
The issue of student control was mentioned frequently in closing arguments. The student plaintiffs and their parents contend that allowing students to make content decisions without first being approved by school officials was negligent.
When it was his turn, Patterson denied the district was negligent and pointed to a Washington State curriculum guideline for journalism that recognized the First Amendment rights of students and discouraged school officials from interfering with lawful content published in a student newspaper. The Appendix to the guidelines includes the Student Press Law Center’s Model Guidelines.
Patterson said Puyallup School District had not only followed the state’s guidelines but also the recommendation of journalism education groups, such as the Washington Journalism Education Association, that encourage student control over the content of student papers as the most effective way to teach young journalists.
Depending on the outcome of the case, it is likely that the issue of student vs. administrative control will come up again. On Monday, Superior Court Judge Susan Serko issued a confusing ruling in which she determined that The Jagwire was a “limited public forum,” but said that it was nevertheless subject to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Hazelwood ruling, which allows school officials to censor student speech when they can demonstrate a reasonable educational justification.
Generally, courts have ruled that student media should be categorized as designated, or limited, public forums when “by policy or practice” they have been opened for expressive activity for certain topics or certain groups, such as student journalists. Under existing law, a student newspaper determined to be a limited public forum should be subject to the Supreme Court’s more protective Tinker standard, which allows school officials to censor only unprotected speech, such as libel or obscenity, or speech that would seriously disrupt normal school activities.
Serko’s ruling could be key if the jury were to find the district negligent for failing to exercise greater control over The Jagwire.
Patterson also urged the jury to exercise its “common sense” when weighing the issue of the student plaintiffs’ credibility regarding their claims that they never gave the student newspaper consent to use their names. He spent much of his 90 minutes pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the students’ claims that they did not know of or agree to the use of their names.
Although the reporter did not receive permission in writing from the students, Patterson told the jury it was clear she had the students’ consent to quote them. He said that the student reporter testified that she not only plainly identified herself as reporter, but also wore a press badge, was recording notes on a reporter’s notebook and had a tape recorder running.
Patterson told the jury that while some of them may be uncomfortable with the topic, the award-winning article had performed an important function. He noted that a Jagwire survey had found that many Emerald High School students treated oral sex like nothing more than “making out.” The paper, he said, sought to dispel such thinking by pointing out the health and emotional risks that accompanied oral sex.
“This was an article that was needed and that the students felt addressed a topic the school wasn’t adequately addressing,” Patterson said.
The jury was dismissed late in the afternoon and is scheduled to begin deliberations today. A decision is expected by the end of the week.
Copyright 2010 Student Press Law Center