Student paper seized

[RightIsWrong]

In the ever growing battle between freedom and censorship, school administrators seized 1800 copies of the local high school paper because it contained articles on birth control and tatoos!!

I don't want to make the unverified claim that this is religious based, but this being Tennessee and the content of the articles makes me think that it probably is. If so, do the "morals" of the righteous trump the freedoms of the citizens? I know that I don't believe that they do for even a nanosecond.

For those that don't believe that this is based on relgious/morality-policing, what other reasons could there be and do you believe are they valid? Do the first amendment rights extend to minors or school publications?

CNN link

Tennessee high school newspaper seized

Monday, November 28, 2005; Posted: 9:18 a.m. EST (14:18 GMT)

OAK RIDGE, Tennessee (AP) -- Copies of a high school's student newspaper were seized by administrators because the edition contained stories about birth control and tattoos, stirring a First Amendment debate.

Administrators at Oak Ridge High School went into teachers' classrooms, desks and mailboxes to retrieve all 1,800 copies of the newspaper Tuesday, said teacher Wanda Grooms, who advises the staff, and Brittany Thomas, the student editor.

The Oak Leaf's birth control article listed success rates for different methods and said contraceptives were available from doctors and the local health department. Superintendent Tom Bailey said the article needed to be edited so it would be acceptable for the entire school.

The edition also contained a photo of an unidentified student's tattoo, and the student had not told her parents about the tattoo, said Superintendent Tom Bailey.

"I have a problem with the idea of putting something in the paper that makes us a part of hiding something from the parents," he said.

The paper can be reprinted if the changes are made, he said.

"We have a responsibility to the public to do the right thing," he said. "We've got 14-year-olds that read the newspaper."

Thomas said she wasn't sure about making changes. "I'm not completely OK with reprinting the paper," she said.

First Amendment experts were critical of the seizure.

"This is a terrible lesson in civics," University of Tennessee journalism professor Dwight Teeter said. "This is an issue about the administration wanting to have control. Either the students are going to have a voice, or you're going to have a PR rag for the administration."

 

[imported_Aelius]

"...PR rag for the administration"

Sounds familiar. hehe

 

[zendari]

The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

Search the archives and you get this. Funny how the left things that's ok!

And Text

And Text

 

[getbush]

66% of your links were started by a banned troll. Just choose better next time.

 

[piasabird]

What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

As far as Tatoos are concerned they should just have an article explaining their position.

Tatoos may be illegal for High School Students to get without parental consent in some states for people under 18. i.e. most high schoool students are minors.

I have never seen a Tatoo I thought made the wearer look better. In my opinion the same thing goes for body piercings. Imagine getting too close to a camp fire and your metal piercings heat up and burn you and you cant get them out!

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

Somehow I doubt you'd be on their side if this was a Massachusetts school pulling a paper with articles favorable to Dubya...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

Somehow I doubt you'd be on their side if this was a Massachusetts school pulling a paper with articles favorable to Dubya...

Nope, you are wrong. If you live in Massachusetts you should know the kind of people that live there.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

What if students used their own method of printing?

 

[getbush]

Latex condoms are effective in stopping transmission of AIDS virus. Lambskin are not. Latex condom use would help places like Africa.
http://www.aids.org/factSheets/153-Condoms.html

Imagine getting too close to a rational thought in your brain and it just spontaneously combusting in your thick skull! ouch

 

[Tab]

I am going to assume this is a public school? In any event it's a High School, the I think the people that attend these places have the maturity to deal with the subject of birth control and tatoos.

The superintendent should think about early retirement.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

What if students used their own method of printing?

You can circulate it, but not during the school day or on school property.

Rules and laws concerning schools are stricter than normal. For example, at least where I live, you can't smoke within 1000 feet of school property.

I am going to assume this is a public school? In any event it's a High School, the I think the people that attend these places have the maturity to deal with the subject of birth control and tatoos.

Then they can deal with pictures of abortions too.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

What if students used their own method of printing?

You can circulate it, but not during the school day or on school property.

Rules and laws concerning schools are stricter than normal. For example, at least where I live, you can't smoke within 1000 feet of school property.

I am going to assume this is a public school? In any event it's a High School, the I think the people that attend these places have the maturity to deal with the subject of birth control and tatoos.

Then they can deal with pictures of abortions too.

Yes, they can.

Of course many pictures of 'abortions' are actually not abortions at all, but simply dead fetuses that happen to look quite disgusting and are considered 'effective' images. This is called lying.

But either way, they can deal with those pictures; I would trade circulating that sort of propaganda for disseminating real information about birth control and STDs any day.

 

[Meuge]

It's really funny how the anti-abortion advocates want to shove those pictures in everyone's faces. It's underhanded and sad when their argument consists of "ooohhh, look at how gross and ugly and bloody it is... must be bad". If you're going to show pictures of abortions, then show pictures of girls who've slit their wrists cause they couldn't handle the stress of pregnancy/motherhood at 15... show pictures of young mothers beaten to within an inch of death by the husbands they never wanted to wed... show the pictures of 13-year-old girls who are dying of "flesh-eating" staph infections and gangrene of the abdominal wall from attempting to perform their own household abortions.

Show THOSE pictures alongside the aborted fetuses and let the kids decide which is worse. I don't even approve of abortion on a moral level, but the ****** that the so-called "pro-lifers" pull in the U.S. is not based on decency, morality, or ethics... it's based on religion, prejudice, and misogyny.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Of course many pictures of 'abortions' are actually not abortions at all, but simply dead fetuses that happen to look quite disgusting and are considered 'effective' images. This is called lying.

But either way, they can deal with those pictures; I would trade circulating that sort of propaganda for disseminating real information about birth control and STDs any day.

Consider it whatever you want. Freedom of speech includes freedom to lie.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

...

And this is why imformational articles like this SHOULD be in a high school newspaper. If you are ignorant on the topic, I imagine many high school students are as well. There is a lot of false information flying around, a clear, CORRECT article is in the public interest.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Of course many pictures of 'abortions' are actually not abortions at all, but simply dead fetuses that happen to look quite disgusting and are considered 'effective' images. This is called lying.

But either way, they can deal with those pictures; I would trade circulating that sort of propaganda for disseminating real information about birth control and STDs any day.

Consider it whatever you want. Freedom of speech includes freedom to lie.

That depends on whether the pictures and message are inaccurate enough and inciteful enough to constitute slander (or libel, I can never remember which it is depending on form). But I didn't say specifically that it shouldn't be allowed. I don't believe information should be artificially withheld from people. That's your schtick.

I'm glad you support lying now too. Lie about abortions, lie about birth control, then pretend that all responsibility falls on the individual when something goes wrong and they listened to your lies.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

...

And this is why imformational articles like this SHOULD be in a high school newspaper. If you are ignorant on the topic, I imagine many high school students are as well. There is a lot of false information flying around, a clear, CORRECT article is in the public interest.

I hope that when you say "information like this", you don't mean information like THAT [parent]. The amount of leakage through a latex condom is miniscule to the point that under controlled conditions (10 minutes of pressurized exposure to HIV-sized particles), the leakage still amounted to less than 10^-4 of the volume... and only in <20% of the condoms tested. Considering the amount of inoculate necessary to transmit the infection (you do need >1 virus particle), it might as well be nil. This info is straight from the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Disease (I pulled if from pubmed just a few min ago).

There is nothing in the world that I hate more than half-truths. When they say that condoms "don't protect against HIV" they don't explain that the chance of the virus leaking through the condom is far far less than the chance of the condom breaking.

Furthermore, HIV is not transmitted as a naked virus. Especially at the pH conditions found in the vagina, naked HIV wouldn't survive for more than a couple of minutes. Mostly the infection is carried by white blood cells that are present both in semen, as well as vaginal secretions... and they are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY (to give you an impression of the scale) too big to get through the latex pores.

 

[episodic]

The only thing bad about this, is that if the students publish it on their own, they still get in trouble these days.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

...

And this is why imformational articles like this SHOULD be in a high school newspaper. If you are ignorant on the topic, I imagine many high school students are as well. There is a lot of false information flying around, a clear, CORRECT article is in the public interest.

I hope that when you say "information like this", you don't mean information like THAT [parent]. The amount of leakage through a latex condom is miniscule to the point that under controlled conditions (10 minutes of pressurized exposure to HIV-sized particles), the leakage still amounted to less than 10^-4 of the volume... and only in <20% of the condoms tested. Considering the amount of inoculate necessary to transmit the infection (you do need >1 virus particle), it might as well be nil. This info is straight from the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Disease (I pulled if from pubmed just a few min ago).

There is nothing in the world that I hate more than half-truths. When they say that condoms "don't protect against HIV" they don't explain that the chance of the virus leaking through the condom is far far less than the chance of the condom breaking.

Furthermore, HIV is not transmitted as a naked virus. Especially at the pH conditions found in the vagina, naked HIV wouldn't survive for more than a couple of minutes. Mostly the infection is carried by white blood cells that are present both in semen, as well as vaginal secretions... and they are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY (to give you an impression of the scale) too big to get through the latex pores.

Whoops, my bad. I meant informational articles like the one in the paper...not what piasabird was saying.

 

[shira]

Phew!

When I read the thread title, I thought it said "Student toilet paper seized". And I had this image of the principal in the bathroom and a student sitting on the toilet just starting to wipe himself . . . .

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What they need is an article explaining that condoms are porous enough for the Aids Virus to get through and will not necessarily protect the wearer from getting Aids.

As far as Tatoos are concerned they should just have an article explaining their position.

Tatoos may be illegal for High School Students to get without parental consent in some states for people under 18. i.e. most high schoool students are minors.

I have never seen a Tatoo I thought made the wearer look better. In my opinion the same thing goes for body piercings. Imagine getting too close to a camp fire and your metal piercings heat up and burn you and you cant get them out!

The hell? If you are close enough to a fire that it can heat up piercings, then you are probably in the fire.

 

[AreaCode707]

I don't think I could comment knowledgeably unless I saw the material that was distributed. I'm impressed with how many of you read it.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Of course many pictures of 'abortions' are actually not abortions at all, but simply dead fetuses that happen to look quite disgusting and are considered 'effective' images. This is called lying.

But either way, they can deal with those pictures; I would trade circulating that sort of propaganda for disseminating real information about birth control and STDs any day.

Consider it whatever you want. Freedom of speech includes freedom to lie.

Guess Bush can use that in his defense.

"I lied to the people because the Consitution protects my right to lie."

or maybe...

"I lied about receiving underhanded cash from corporations because the Constitution protects my right to lie."

or maybe...

"I lied about my intellegence because I feel that the Consititution should protect stupid people"

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
The school has an absolute right to regulate what is published in its vicinity. Freedom of speech isn't freedom to use anothers printing presses.

Somehow I doubt you'd be on their side if this was a Massachusetts school pulling a paper with articles favorable to Dubya...

Nope, you are wrong. If you live in Massachusetts you should know the kind of people that live there.

At least we know that you'll never win any sort of election in Massachusetts. Unless you excersize your right to lie.