# data[].attributes.body
I work at an alternative middle school and am studying Professional School Counseling. Many of my students have had legal issues, and so it is important for me to understand all of their rights, and the rights that they may have waived upon enrollment in an alternative school. The audience of this legal guide is focused on teachers and parents, as they may not always understand what their students can and cannot say in regards to freedom of speech. It is commonly known that individuals have the right to express themselves, their religion, and their opinions due to the First Amendment. However, there are situations when this particular right is waived. For example, in the case of national security. It also should be noted that schools and private institutions have the ability to limit this right. I selected this topic because it is one that many individuals know, but do not fully comprehend how it can be applied and modified in specific situations.

# data[].attributes.body
When students know about their first amendment right, they sometimes understand it as the right to say anything they want. This can sometimes cause trouble for the student, as well as waste time and resources for other parties involved. At an alternative school, certain statements can result in longer enrollment periods which in turn can result in expulsion from the district. Threats made by students also have to be evaluated which means an investigation has to take place, taking the time of officers that have other important matters to address. In a different light, social media and politics have played a role in the perspective of adolescents. Children can now be more informed about the education they are receiving than before. This means they may feel the need to speak out if they believe there are faults with their education. This will likely be a larger issue in districts/schools that are heavily censoring and banning certain topics and materials. For example, previously if critical race theory was censored, the students did not know about it and could not comment on its censorship. However, in modern times, students may be well aware of critical race theory and realize that their school is censoring this content and feel the need to speak up about it.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent years, teenagers are showing increased favoring of the First Amendment.  The article above provides statistical evidence that reinforces this idea. It also discusses the role that social media may play in teenager’s support for their freedom of speech.

Walker, T. (2017, February 15). Support for first amendment spikes among high school students. NEA. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/support-first-amendment-spikes-among-high-school-students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While your average 13-year-old may not have much of a clue how a bill becomes a law or what the separation of powers refers to, American teenagers support for the First Amendment has never been stronger, according to a new survey by the Knight Foundation.

The national study of 11,998 high school students and 726 teachers - the sixth such survey the Foundation has conducted since 2005 - found that 91 percent of students said it was important to be able to "express unpopular opinions," up from 83 percent who felt that way in 2004. First Amendment support is highest among students who had a class that dealt with the First Amendment and used digital media on a regular basis.

"This year's study paints a very favorable picture of the future of the First Amendment," said Kenneth Dautrich, author of the report and president of The Stats Group. "Today's high school students are more supportive of free expression rights than any we've surveyed in the past."

This enthusiasm is not without its limits, however. Students backed away a bit in their support when it comes to offensive words and bullying. Only 45 percent believe speech intended to offend people should be protected and even fewer students (36 percent) support speech that could be considered bullying.

Breaking down by demographics yields some interesting, if not particularly surprising, results. Male students were 10 percent more likely than female students to support protections for offensive speech. By the same margin, White students were more supportive than Hispanic and Asian students of these protections. This discrepancy increased to 20 percent with Black students.

The gap between student support and adult support has narrowed over the past decade. (See graph below)

News Consumptions Makes a Difference

Probably the most useful data point for social studies and media literacy teachers is this: support for the First Amendment is strongest among those students who actively engage with the news across all platforms.

"The most supportive students are ... those that regularly see First Amendment freedoms play out as producers or consumers of information," said Dautrich.

For those students who read, share, and comment on news on social media, the support for the First Amendment was particularly high (71 percent). For those who don't, the number drops to 56 percent.

This discrepancy also applies to traditional news sources. Stronger support for "expressing unpopular opinions" can be found among among students who read print newspapers often (69 percent) than those who rarely read newspapers (57 percent).

"This correlation supports the notion that more exposure to news and information only builds knowledge, and that familiarity builds a better sense of the value of those five freedoms - religion, speech, press, assembly and petition - to our nation," wrote Gene Policinsk i, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute's First Amendment Center.

Where Students and Teachers Diverge

Students in general are less concerned about privacy than adults. Only 31 percent of students were worried about the privacy of the information they posted on the Internet, compared to 65 percent of adults.

Students are much more likely (26 percent) to trust regular individuals than professional journalists to report on news events. Only 11 percent of teachers say the same.

Furthermore, the majority of teachers believe the First Amendment rights should not apply to school activities, including student content. For example, 61 percent of educators believe that students should not be allowed to report on "controversial issues" in student newspapers without the approval of the administration. Sixty-six percent say that students should not be allowed to express their opinions about school staff on Facebook without penalty. Not surprisingly, only 26 percent of students agreed with that statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Support for First Amendment Spikes Among High School Students | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While your average 13-year-old may not have much of a clue how a bill becomes a law or what the separation of powers refers to, American teenagers support for the First Amendment has never been stronger, according to a new survey by the Knight Foundation.

# data[].attributes.body
The article helps to bring to light the dilemma many districts are facing when it comes to social media and enforcing district policies and student codes of conduct.

The line between protecting students from harassment/bullying and protecting their freedom of speech is blurred.

It is difficult to make policies on student safety when it comes to social media as it occurs off-campus, but can have an effect on students on campus.

So far, the supreme court has ruled in favor of the student’s first amendment right.

Overall, however, there is little guidance for schools and districts to navigate this gray area, and the decision by the supreme court was vague.

Superville, D. R. (2021, June 24). Educators look for guideposts in Supreme Court ruling on Student Free speech. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/educators-look-for-guideposts-in-supreme-court-ruling-on-student-free-speech/2021/06

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The education community offered measured responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday that a Pennsylvania school district violated a student's First Amendment rights when it disciplined her for a vulgar Snapchat message after she did not make the varsity cheerleading squad.

L. Earl Franks, the executive director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, said while he respected the court's majority's opinion in the 8-1 decision, he worried that it could establish a precedent for similar cases in which the disruption to the school community is wider than those alleged in the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case.

The justices held that the impact of the student's actions in this case was not enough to satisfy the school's special interests in regulating student speech, including preventing disruption at school.

"The principal ... does not always know what conduct is going to be disruptive," said Franks. While responses are based on a school's code of conduct, they're also "a judgment call," he said.

The NAESP, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, AASA, the School Superintendents Association, and the National School Boards Association had filed a friend of the court brief in support of the Mahanoy Area School District, asking the court to uphold the district's actions.

Daniel Domenech, executive director of the AASA, the School Superintendents Association, was disheartened by the court's ruling that the decision to discipline the student violated her First Amendment rights.

"To make that kind of behavior public, as was done in that particular case, and to say there's nothing the school can do about it-it's disappointing," Domenech said.

But he said the more important issue for the organization was that districts retained the right to take action in cases that included bullying, harassment, or could cause harm to others.

"That's still something that districts can act on," he said.

At the same time, he said school administrators might still be unclear about when they can respond.

"The best we can do is to provide them as much guidance as possible so that before they act, they can assess the chances of whatever they do being upheld or repelled," Domenech said. "But it's definitely far from clear."

Off-campus speech at the center of the debate

One of the main concerns for administrators, based on a previous ruling in the case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, was that districts would lose the ability to regulate all off-campus speech, including those that may include bullying, harassment, and attacks on teachers.

Franks said he agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas, who filed the lone dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court, that the majority's opinion was too vague to provide guidance for educators on future cases and may have been clouded by the school district's harsh response to the student's actions.

Still, Franks said he is "happy that the majority left open and suggested that educators could take action against some off campus speech," and that it left some of the determination to the judgement and expertise of educational professionals.

Ronn Nozoe, the chief executive director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, also had mixed responses to the ruling.

"We're glad that the ruling left the door open ... to ensure that school administrators and school leaders retain the right to take action-disciplinary or otherwise-on matters that happen outside of school that threaten or jeopardize the normal and safe operations of school," he said.

But Nozoe also noted that principals have to make decisions quickly in the age of social media, and he thinks the Mahanoy ruling could make it more complicated for school leaders.

"You've got to consider this in real time," he said. "These folks are trying to protect kids and make sure that things don't spiral out of control, because once they get out of control, they become very hard to rein in."

"None of our members are out there to curtail free speech," he said. "In fact, what we are now pushing for is elevating student voice."

Justin Driver, a Yale University law professor who wrote an acclaimed book about student rights cases in the Supreme Court, said he found the majority opinion so narrow in scope as to settle little about regulation of off-campus speech.

"School administrators and teachers and even lower court judges have been in desperate need of guidance in this area, and I'm afraid this opinion provides relatively little," he said.

However, Driver, a supporter of broad First Amendment rights for students, was heartened by some of Breyer's language about schools as "nurseries of democracy" and as promoters of student expression.

"It's been a long time since a Supreme Court [free speech] opinion sounded in that register," he said.

Emily Kirkpatrick, executive director of the National Council of Teachers of English, echoed that last sentiment. The group, which filed a friend of the court brief in support of the student, was worried about administrators having unfettered ability to regulate what students say off campus.

"We are encouraged because the Supreme Court ruled 8-1, very clearly in favor of the student-which means in favor of protecting student voice and freedom of speech, particularly in off-campus environments," Kirkpatrick said.

That's especially important "in this digital age, when students are not only expressing themselves, but also igniting so much important change in their communities," she said.

Where the Supreme Court left things vague and what it emphasized

Martha McCarthy, who teaches education law at Loyola Marymount University's school of education in Los Angeles, also considered the Breyer opinion vague on several points.

"I think school personnel should feel quite relieved" that the high court did not endorse the ruling below by the federal appeals court that restrictions on student speech did not apply categorically to off-campus speech.

But the high court opinion was vague on when schools could regulate off-campus speech in the areas Breyer generally identified, such as threats and bullying.

"It leaves a lot of room for how they are going to define that," McCarthy said. "But leaving precise descriptions to future cases is not very helpful."

While the court ruled that the Mahanoy school district violated student Brandi Levy's First Amendment rights, it also recognized that schools have an interest in regulating speech off campus that includes bullying and harassment.

"We are actually quite pleased with the decision because what we'd asked to court to do was to overturn that part of the appellate court decision that said that schools could not regulate student speech that happened outside of campus," said Francisco Negrón, the general counsel for the National School Boards Association.

The court recognized that "speech, in modern times, happens in a variety of ways," Negrón said. "It's not so much where the speech happens, what matters is the impact or the effect it has on the school setting."

Negrón said the decision will clarify for school administrators when they can act, and will help schools and districts as they adopt policies and practices.

"I think that's significant for schools to understand that mere criticism without disruption or infringement on the rights of others is not enough," Negrón said.

Both Negrón and Fitzpatrick said they think the court provides enough guidance for educators to determine in which situations they can respond.

"When the speech is out of school, the court is going to ask schools to look at the nature of the speech, whether it's having an impact on the school setting, and what kind of speech it is," Negrón said.

-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Educators Look for Guideposts in Supreme Court Ruling on Student Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The education community offered measured responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday that a Pennsylvania school district violated a student's First Amendment rights when it disciplined her for a vulgar Snapchat message after she did not make the varsity cheerleading squad. L.

# data[].attributes.body
While freedom of speech cannot be taken away from students, there are ways to discourage and censor certain groups.

In higher education, this can be done by cutting funding from groups that the campus does not support.

Higher education campuses are a helpful tool in maintaining charter organizations, but these charters are reliant on the campuses.

The charters are still allowed to meet as per their first amendment right, but now lack funding and credibility, which can make it difficult for the groups to continue their work.

Schools cannot directly censor students, but they can make it more difficult for them to get their message across.

Alonso, J. (2023, June 22). U of Buffalo Student Clubs lose recognition due to new rule. Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/06/22/u-buffalo-student-clubs-lose-recognition-due-new-rule

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Suha Chowdhury started a chapter of the humanitarian aid organization Islamic Relief at the University at Buffalo, she envisioned joining with her peers to fundraise for global causes and help Buffalo-area nonprofits-all with the support of her university.

But because of a new rule introduced by the Student Association, one of the university's student government bodies, Islamic Relief Buffalo, as it's known, was never officially recognized as a university club and therefore wasn't eligible for institutional backing.

The rule, an update to the existing Club Recognition policy introduced in late March, prohibits official student organizations from affiliating with outside groups. It states, "Except for clubs in the Academic, Engineering, or Sports Councils, and clubs whose sole purpose is to engage in inter-collegiate competition, no SA club may be a chapter of or otherwise part of any outside organization."

(According to the Club Recognition policy, the vice president of the Student Association is responsible for assigning each club to a particular council.)

Some students allege the rule was added to restrict one specific conservative organization, but it ended up thwarting dozens of existing UB clubs affiliated with outside organizations-including Islamic Relief and multiple other service-based organizations. Clubs that aren't officially recognized are not allowed to use campus space, benefit from student activity fee funding or raise money on campus, among other things.

"Student Association funds are for holding events; that's why we pay our student activity fee. That's where the funds are going towards," Chowdhury said. "I know I'm very close with the president of [the UB chapter of] Amnesty International; they don't have any resources. UNICEF doesn't have any resources, Circle K-all of these nonprofits and humanitarian organizations that exist on campus, none of us really have any type of funding or foundation anymore."

Response to Knowles Appearance

Despite the far-reaching impact of the new rule, some believe it was created specifically to target Buffalo's Young Americans for Freedom club, a chapter of the influential Young America's Foundation, a conservative youth advocacy organization. That's because it was implemented weeks after the group welcomed to campus Michael Knowles, a controversial conservative pundit who has been criticized for his comments about women, transgender people and same-sex marriage. Just a week before the talk, Knowles told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely."

Knowles's appearance drew harsh backlash on campus. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the venue; one person was arrested and two were removed from the hall where the talk took place, though no charges were filed, according to the Buffalo-area CBS affiliate, WIVB.

Michael Knowles, pictured here, is a controversial conservative figure who has received criticism for his statements about women and the LGBTQ community.

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Members of the UB YAF responded to the Student Association's new rule by filing a federal lawsuit alleging that the university violated the First and 14th Amendments by denying members the right to expressive association, freedom of speech and right to assembly. The group and three of its members are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing, nonprofit, Christian law firm focused on religious freedom and freedom of speech cases.

The complaint alleges that because the Student Association has unilateral control over which clubs are placed into the councils that are exempt from the outside affiliation rule, the Club Recognition policy "discriminates against Plaintiffs based on the content of their speech."

The lawsuit asks for an injunction forbidding the university or those acting on its behalf from denying YAF recognition because of its affiliation with the national organization.

The Student Association did not respond to a request for comment, nor did its president, Becky Paul-Odionhin. However, on an Instagram page for her re-election campaign, she responded to criticism that she essentially forced clubs to cut ties with their affiliate organizations.

"With so many different clubs under SA that SA needs to cater to and protect, it is imperative that we ensure one club's actions under the direction of external affiliations does not destroy all the other club's chances to continue performing their function and advocating for students," she wrote.

The plaintiffs argue in the complaint that they know the move was targeted at YAF because the Student Association president sought legal counsel regarding the policy update and told the Student Association Senate, "We all know why we're doing this."

The university declined to comment on the suit but sent an emailed statement regarding the club recognition policy.

"UB's Division of Student Life is aware of SA's new club recognition policy and its impact on clubs in the hobby, international, POC and special interest councils. The Office of Student Engagement is available to meet with impacted clubs to explore alternative recognizing agent opportunities that may help maintain the benefits of university-wide recognition, including the ability to reserve space on campus, table, fundraise and hold a university financial account," the statement read. "UB strives to create an environment in which diverse opinions can be expressed and heard. As a public university, it is a fundamental value of UB that all members of the campus community have a right to express their views and opinions, regardless of whether others may disagree with those expressions."

Service Organizations Push Back

The UB YAF and the Alliance Defending Freedom aren't the only ones pushing back against the Student Association's sweeping new rule. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote two letters to the university, though neither has received a response, according to Zachary Greenberg, a senior program officer with FIRE.

"This is part of a larger trend of universities and student governments retaliating against groups for expression, speakers and events they don't like. Instead of combating these ideas with their own ideas, their own events, their own speakers, they use the power of the state, of the university, to punish these groups, to try to censor them by taking away their funding, their recognition, and by denying them a place on campus," he said. "These actions are antithetical to free speech ... and they're the opposite of how education is supposed to work."

Greenberg said that it's not uncommon for student governments to use their authority to censor or restrict individual student groups. But the situation in Buffalo appears to be unique in the large number of clubs that have been impacted.

"The abuse of students' rights is multiplied by the dozens of student groups that this policy affects," he said.

UB students and student organizations have also rallied for the rule to be reversed. One petition, signed by 331 students, asked the student government to hold a referendum on the policy, criticizing the fact that most clubs affected by it weren't consulted prior to the Senate vote.

Islamic Relief Buffalo also released an open letter on May 4, signed by over 30 student organizations, expressing frustration with the policy.

"As pointed out by many third-party organizations on campus, losing our affiliation would not only mean losing credibility," it reads. "To cut our third-party ties would mean to cut ourselves off from the work that Islamic Relief does for our community on a local, national, and international scale. It would mean losing resources. Much of our resources-even things such as videos-come to us directly from the Islamic Relief national board, and are only provided to us because we are a chapter. The regional managers of Islamic Relief have served as mentors, advisers, and an irreplaceable resource to us."

Chowdhury told Inside Higher Ed she has been working to schedule time to speak with Paul-Odionhin about how the rule has impacted the club. In the comments on her Instagram post, Paul-Odionhin said she had reached out to all of the affected clubs to arrange meetings to discuss "how we can help them perform their function under the new guidelines."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U of Buffalo student clubs lose recognition due to new rule

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The student assembly introduced a new rule banning recognition of clubs affiliated with outside groups. Some believe it's intended to censor a conservative campus organization. When Suha Chowdhury started a chapter of the humanitarian aid organization Islamic Relief at the University at Buffalo, she envisioned joining with her peers to fundraise for global causes and help Buffalo-area nonprofits-all with the support of her university.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #6 Original Sources of Law: Consitutional Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #6 Original Sources of Law: Consitutional Law

# data[].attributes.body
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment protects an individual’s right to freedom of speech. This allows individuals the right to voice their opinions without fear of prosecution. As originally written in the Bill of Rights, there were no listed exceptions to this amendment, meaning that any individual in the United States has the right to make any statement he or she wants to.

U.S. Const. amend. I.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3-12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
ATTEST,
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
Amendments 11-27
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendments 11-27
Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #7 Original Sources of Law: Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #7 Original Sources of Law: Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.body
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”

This law shows that there are certain exceptions to freedom of speech. One of the main exceptions is that private establishments and organizations are allowed to censor content based on their own description. For example, social media sites are allowed to remove lewd comments and photos from their sites without risking violating the first amendment.

Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) (2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

(d) Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(5) No effect on sex trafficking law Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit-

any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant's promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

(f) Definitions As used in this section:

The term " Internet " means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(4) Access software provider The term " access software provider " means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104-104, title V, § 509, , 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), , 112 Stat. 2681-739; Pub. L. 115-164, § 4(a), , 132 Stat. 1254.)

Codification

Section 509 of Pub. L. 104-104, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104-104 designating §§ 201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§ 251 et seq.) and III (§ 271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115-164, § 4(b), , 132 Stat. 1254, provided that:

"The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [], and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment."

Pub. L. 115-164, § 7, , 132 Stat. 1255, provided that:

"Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note set out under section 1 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment of this Act [] that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 230), as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act."

Pub. L. 115-164, § 2, , 132 Stat. 1253, provided that:

"It is the sense of Congress that-

websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and

clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #8 Original Sources of Law: Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #8 Original Sources of Law: Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.body
“A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.”

Another exception to the first amendment is defamatory speech, also known as libel. Since libel has the potential to cause harm, either financial or other, to another individual, these types of defamatory statements are not protected by the first amendment.

It is common for students to make hateful posts and comments about each other on social media. While their are still minors, it is mostly seen as bullying. While still not allowed, bullying has less legal consequences as libel. However, teaching students that this type of behavior can have serious repercussions when they are older.
Liability in Tort,Civil Practice and Remedies Code, §73.001

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE



TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT



CHAPTER 73. LIBEL



SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS



Sec. 73.001. ELEMENTS OF LIBEL. A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


Sec. 73.002. PRIVILEGED MATTERS. (a) The publication by a newspaper or other periodical of a matter covered by this section is privileged and is not a ground for a libel action. This privilege does not extend to the republication of a matter if it is proved that the matter was republished with actual malice after it had ceased to be of public concern.


(b) This section applies to:


(1) a fair, true, and impartial account of:


(A) a judicial proceeding, unless the court has prohibited publication of a matter because in its judgment the interests of justice demand that the matter not be published;


(B) an official proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding, to administer the law;


(C) an executive or legislative proceeding (including a proceeding of a legislative committee), a proceeding in or before a managing board of an educational or eleemosynary institution supported from the public revenue, of the governing body of a city or town, of a county commissioners court, and of a public school board or a report of or debate and statements made in any of those proceedings; or


(D) the proceedings of a public meeting dealing with a public purpose, including statements and discussion at the meeting or other matters of public concern occurring at the meeting; and


(2) reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of an official act of a public official or other matter of public concern published for general information.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


Sec. 73.003. MITIGATING FACTORS. (a) To determine the extent and source of actual damages and to mitigate exemplary damages, the defendant in a libel action may give evidence of the following matters if they have been specially pleaded:


(1) all material facts and circumstances surrounding the claim for damages and defenses to the claim;


(2) all facts and circumstances under which the libelous publication was made; and


(3) any public apology, correction, or retraction of the libelous matter made and published by the defendant.


(b) To mitigate exemplary damages, the defendant in a libel action may give evidence of the intention with which the libelous publication was made if the matter has been specially pleaded.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


Sec. 73.004. LIABILITY OF BROADCASTER. (a) A broadcaster is not liable in damages for a defamatory statement published or uttered in or as a part of a radio or television broadcast by one other than the broadcaster unless the complaining party proves that the broadcaster failed to exercise due care to prevent the publication or utterance of the statement in the broadcast.


(b) In this section, "broadcaster" means an owner, licensee, or operator of a radio or television station or network of stations and the agents and employees of the owner, licensee, or operator.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. (a) The truth of the statement in the publication on which an action for libel is based is a defense to the action.


(b) In an action brought against a newspaper or other periodical or broadcaster, the defense described by Subsection (a) applies to an accurate reporting of allegations made by a third party regarding a matter of public concern.


(c) This section does not abrogate or lessen any other remedy, right, cause of action, defense, immunity, or privilege available under the Constitution of the United States or this state or as provided by any statute, case, or common law or rule.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


Amended by:


Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 191 (S.B. 627), Sec. 1, eff. May 28, 2015.


Sec. 73.006. OTHER DEFENSES. This chapter does not affect the existence of common law, statutory law, or other defenses to libel.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.


SUBCHAPTER B. CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION BY PUBLISHER



Sec. 73.051. SHORT TITLE. This subchapter may be cited as the Defamation Mitigation Act. This subchapter shall be liberally construed.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.052. PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to provide a method for a person who has been defamed by a publication or broadcast to mitigate any perceived damage or injury.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.053. DEFINITION. In this subchapter, "person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, or other legal or commercial entity. The term does not include a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.054. APPLICABILITY. (a) This subchapter applies to a claim for relief, however characterized, from damages arising out of harm to personal reputation caused by the false content of a publication.


(b) This subchapter applies to all publications, including writings, broadcasts, oral communications, electronic transmissions, or other forms of transmitting information.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.055. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) A person may maintain an action for defamation only if:


(1) the person has made a timely and sufficient request for a correction, clarification, or retraction from the defendant; or


(2) the defendant has made a correction, clarification, or retraction.


(b) A request for a correction, clarification, or retraction is timely if made during the period of limitation for commencement of an action for defamation.


(c) If not later than the 90th day after receiving knowledge of the publication, the person does not request a correction, clarification, or retraction, the person may not recover exemplary damages.


(d) A request for a correction, clarification, or retraction is sufficient if it:


(1) is served on the publisher;


(2) is made in writing, reasonably identifies the person making the request, and is signed by the individual claiming to have been defamed or by the person's authorized attorney or agent;


(3) states with particularity the statement alleged to be false and defamatory and, to the extent known, the time and place of publication;


(4) alleges the defamatory meaning of the statement; and


(5) specifies the circumstances causing a defamatory meaning of the statement if it arises from something other than the express language of the publication.


(e) A period of limitation for commencement of an action under this section is tolled during the period allowed by Sections 73.056 and 73.057.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.056. DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE OF FALSITY. (a) A person who has been requested to make a correction, clarification, or retraction may ask the person making the request to provide reasonably available information regarding the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement not later than the 30th day after the date the person receives the request. Any information requested under this section must be provided by the person seeking the correction, clarification, or retraction not later than the 30th day after the date the person receives the request.


(b) If a correction, clarification, or retraction is not made, a person who, without good cause, fails to disclose the information requested under Subsection (a) may not recover exemplary damages, unless the publication was made with actual malice.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.057. TIMELY AND SUFFICIENT CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) A correction, clarification, or retraction is timely if it is made not later than the 30th day after receipt of:


(1) the request for the correction, clarification, or retraction; or


(2) the information requested under Section 73.056(a).


(b) A correction, clarification, or retraction is sufficient if it is published in the same manner and medium as the original publication or, if that is not possible, with a prominence and in a manner and medium reasonably likely to reach substantially the same audience as the publication complained of and:


(1) is publication of an acknowledgment that the statement specified as false and defamatory is erroneous;


(2) is an allegation that the defamatory meaning arises from other than the express language of the publication and the publisher disclaims an intent to communicate that meaning or to assert its truth;


(3) is a statement attributed to another person whom the publisher identifies and the publisher disclaims an intent to assert the truth of the statement; or


(4) is publication of the requestor's statement of the facts, as set forth in a request for correction, clarification, or retraction, or a fair summary of the statement, exclusive of any portion that is defamatory of another, obscene, or otherwise improper for publication.


(c) If a request for correction, clarification, or retraction has specified two or more statements as false and defamatory, the correction, clarification, or retraction may deal with the statements individually in any manner provided by Subsection (b).


(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), a correction, clarification, or retraction is published with a prominence and in a manner and medium reasonably likely to reach substantially the same audience as the publication complained of if:


(1) it is published in a later issue, edition, or broadcast of the original publication;


(2) publication is in the next practicable issue, edition, or broadcast of the original publication because the publication will not be published within the time limits established for a timely correction, clarification, or retraction; or


(3) the original publication no longer exists and if the correction, clarification, or retraction is published in the newspaper with the largest general circulation in the region in which the original publication was distributed.


(e) If the original publication was on the Internet, a correction, clarification, or retraction is published with a prominence and in a manner and medium reasonably likely to reach substantially the same audience as the publication complained of if the publisher appends to the original publication the correction, clarification, or retraction.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.058. CHALLENGES TO CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION OR TO REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) If a defendant in an action under this subchapter intends to rely on a timely and sufficient correction, clarification, or retraction, the defendant's intention to do so, and the correction, clarification, or retraction relied on, must be stated in a notice served on the plaintiff on the later of:


(1) the 60th day after service of the citation; or


(2) the 10th day after the date the correction, clarification, or retraction is made.


(b) A correction, clarification, or retraction is timely and sufficient unless the plaintiff challenges the timeliness or sufficiency not later than the 20th day after the date notice under Subsection (a) is served. If a plaintiff challenges the timeliness or sufficiency, the plaintiff must state the challenge in a motion to declare the correction, clarification, or retraction untimely or insufficient served not later than the 30th day after the date notice under Subsection (a) is served on the plaintiff or the 30th day after the date the correction, clarification, or retraction is made, whichever is later.


(c) If a defendant intends to challenge the sufficiency or timeliness of a request for a correction, clarification, or retraction, the defendant must state the challenge in a motion to declare the request insufficient or untimely served not later than the 60th day after the date of service of the citation.


(d) Unless there is a reasonable dispute regarding the actual contents of the request for correction, clarification, or retraction, the sufficiency and timeliness of a request for correction, clarification, or retraction is a question of law. At the earliest appropriate time before trial, the court shall rule, as a matter of law, whether the request for correction, clarification, or retraction meets the requirements of this subchapter.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.059. EFFECT OF CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. If a correction, clarification, or retraction is made in accordance with this subchapter, regardless of whether the person claiming harm made a request, a person may not recover exemplary damages unless the publication was made with actual malice.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.060. SCOPE OF PROTECTION. A timely and sufficient correction, clarification, or retraction made by a person responsible for a publication constitutes a correction, clarification, or retraction made by all persons responsible for that publication but does not extend to an entity that republished the information.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.061. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION. (a) A request for a correction, clarification, or retraction, the contents of the request, and the acceptance or refusal of the request are not admissible evidence at a trial.


(b) The fact that a correction, clarification, or retraction was made and the contents of the correction, clarification, or retraction are not admissible in evidence at trial except in mitigation of damages under Section 73.003(a)(3). If a correction, clarification, or retraction is received into evidence, the request for the correction, clarification, or retraction may also be received into evidence.


(c) The fact that an offer of a correction, clarification, or retraction was made and the contents of the offer, and the fact that the correction, clarification, or retraction was refused, are not admissible in evidence at trial.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 73.062. ABATEMENT. (a) A person against whom a suit is pending who does not receive a written request for a correction, clarification, or retraction, as required by Section 73.055, may file a plea in abatement not later than the 30th day after the date the person files an original answer in the court in which the suit is pending.


(b) A suit is automatically abated, in its entirety, without the order of the court, beginning on the 11th day after the date a plea in abatement is filed under Subsection (a) if the plea in abatement:


(1) is verified and alleges that the person against whom the suit is pending did not receive the written request as required by Section 73.055; and


(2) is not controverted in an affidavit filed by the person bringing the claim before the 11th day after the date on which the plea in abatement is filed.


(c) An abatement under Subsection (b) continues until the 60th day after the date that the written request is served or a later date agreed to by the parties. If a controverting affidavit is filed under Subsection (b)(2), a hearing on the plea in abatement will take place as soon as practical considering the court's docket.


(d) All statutory and judicial deadlines under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure relating to a suit abated under Subsection (b), other than those provided in this section, will be stayed during the pendency of the abatement period under this section.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 950 (H.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 73. LIBEL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT CHAPTER 73. LIBEL SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 73.001. ELEMENTS OF LIBEL.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide # 9 Original Source of Law: Judicial Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide # 9 Original Source of Law: Judicial Law

# data[].attributes.body
"The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment. "

As a school counselor, it is part of my responsibilities to ensure that the daily learning environment is not being disrupted. It is also part of my responsibility to ensure that my students feel supported and to advocate for those will need it. In regards to this law, it is my place to determine what may be considered disruptive, and what may be students simply sticking up for themselves.

Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decision Date: February 24, 1969 Background At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10 Policy or Rule from a School or Institution - Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10 Policy or Rule from a School or Institution - Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.body
“Profanity, vulgar language, and obscenity in any form, including obscene gestures and pictures (including those deemed by school personnel to be pornographic in nature), will not be tolerated. If appropriate, a Class C Misdemeanor citation will be issued in addition to any other disciplinary measures taken. “

This policy set forth by Killeen Independent School districts shows that certain aspects of the first amendment can be overruled within the school district. The policy focuses on inappropriate language and profanity, but also notes that school personnel can use personal description to make decisions on if the language in question is appropriate. Not only are the students that violate this policy held accountable within the school district, they may also be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor on the state level.

As a counselor at an alternative school, many of my students use profanity as a way of expressing their emotions. However, knowing the potential consequences of this, an effort should be in order to help students find other methods of expressing their feelings that do not have as much risk associated with them.

Killeen Independent School District. (2022). Student Code of Conduct. https://www.killeenisd.org/cms/lib/TX02205734/Centricity/Domain/7180/Student_Code_of_Conduct_English.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors A.11.f

“In response to a hate or bias incident (e.g. discrimination, explicit bias, hate speech), collaborate with administrative teams to ensure safety, provide support for targeted students, facilitate effective communication, provide education, connect students to resources and promote healing and recovery within the school community. “

This principle relates to aspects of free speech that may have negative consequences and impacts on other students within the community. Students may engage in hate speech under the belief that the first amendment protects them from prosecution, however, it is part of a counselor’s responsibility to help aid those impacted by any harmful speech.

American School Counselor Association. (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The National Coalition Against Censorship provides a general overview of freedom of speech rights and its place in public schools. While not a legal document or policy, it does summarize and reference specific supreme court cases that are helpful when understanding first amendment rights in schools. It also discusses censorship and the parties responsible for censoring material.

Staff, N. (2021, August 17). The First Amendment in Schools. National Coalition Against Censorship. https://ncac.org/resource/first-amendment-in-schools#firstamendpublicschools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First Amendment protects both students and teachers in schools.
NCAC presents the following collection of materials on the topic of censorship in schools for the use of students, educators, and parents everywhere. This information is not intended as legal advice. If you face a censorship controversy, the resources below can offer guidance. If you need additional assistance, please NOTE: Guide for Student Protesters available here . We will keep your information confidential until given permission to do otherwise. Introduction: Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy
Table of Contents

The First Amendment and Public Schools
A. The First Amendment
B. The Public Schools
1. School Publications: Student Newspapers and Yearbooks
2. Off-Campus Publications
3. Hair, Dress, and Appearance
4. Gang Symbols and Insignia
5. Off-Campus Speech

Censorship
A. Understanding Censorship
B. Distinguishing Censorship from Selection
C. Consequences of Censorship

How Big a Problem Is Censorship?
A. The Numbers
B. What Kind of Material Is Attacked?
C. What Does "Age Appropriate" Mean?
D. Who Gets Censored?

Roles and Responsibilities
A. School Officials, Boards and State Mandates
B. Principles Governing Selection and Retention of Materials in Schools
C. Complaint Procedures

Censorship Policies
National Education Association (NEA)
The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (NCTE/IRA)
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
American Library Association (ALA)
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)

Introduction: Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy

Purpose of the Resource Guide: The First Amendment safeguards the rights of every American to speak and think freely. Those rights are central to the educational process and are equally important to educators and students.

For teachers and administrators: The First Amendment protects teachers when they exercise their judgment in accordance with professional standards, making it possible for them to create learning environments that effectively help young people acquire the knowledge and skills needed to become productive, self-sufficient, and contributing members of society.

For students: The First Amendment protects students' ability to think critically and learn how to investigate a wide range of ideas. Students have the right to express their beliefs, just like any other citizen. Protecting students' rights to read, inquire and express themselves is critical to educating informed, engaged citizens.

This guide describes in practical terms what the right to freedom of expression means for students, teachers and administrators in public schools.

Free Speech, Public Education, and Democracy: Our founders considered public schools to be one of the vital institutions of American democracy. But they also knew that education involves more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. Education in a democratic society requires developing citizens who can adapt to changing times, decide important social issues, and effectively judge the performance of public officials. In fulfilling their responsibilities, public schools must educate students on core American values such as fairness, equality, justice, respect for others, and the right to dissent.

Rapid social, political, and technological changes have escalated controversy over what and how schools should teach. References to sexuality, profane language, descriptions of violence and other potentially controversial material have raised questions for generations of parents and educators. Addressing those questions is even more complicated now, when most school communities are made up of individuals with differing backgrounds, cultural traditions, religions, and often languages. With students and parents bringing a range of expectations and needs to the classroom, educators are challenged to balance the educational needs of an entire student body while maintaining respect for the individual rights of each member of the school community.

The First Amendment can help resolve this tension. It defines certain critical rights and responsibilities of participants in the educational process. It both protects the freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry, and requires respect for the right of others to do the same. It requires schools to resort to " more speech not enforced silence " in seeking to resolve our differences.

The First Amendment and Public Schools
A. The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.-First Amendment of the United States Constitution ratified December 15, 1791

The first provision of the Bill of Rights establishes the rights essential to a democratic society and most cherished by Americans: the right to speak and worship freely, the right to assemble and to petition the government, and the right to a free press. Although most countries purport to guarantee freedom of expression, few provide the level of protection for free speech that the First Amendment guarantees.
B. The Public Schools
The potential for tyranny by the state and abuse of government authority particularly worried framers of the Bill of Rights. Thus, the language of the First Amendment begins by prohibiting certain government conduct -i.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting...." Like most of the Constitution, these limitations control only what the government may do, and have no effect on private individuals or businesses. Although the Bill of Rights originally limited only the power of the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the limits imposed by most of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well. Since public schools and public libraries are part of state and local government, they must follow the First Amendment as well as many other provisions of the Constitution. However, as this manual will make clear, the First Amendment applies somewhat differently to schools than it does to many other public institutions.

Public schools are institutions which in some respects most embody the goals of the First Amendment: to create informed citizenry capable of self-governance. As many commentators have observed, a democracy relies on an informed and critical electorate to prosper. As Noah Webster observed in 1785: "It is scarcely possible to reduce an enlightened people to civil or ecclesiastical tyranny." And on the eve of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Rush stated that "to conform the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens to our republican form of government, it is absolutely necessary that knowledge of every kind should be disseminated through every part of the United States." Not surprisingly, universal access to free public education has long been viewed as essential to democratic ideals.

America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Our representative democracy only works if we protect the "marketplace of ideas." This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People's will. Schools, however, can sometimes limit students' right to free speech and expression when necessary to achieve legitimate educational goals. As the Supreme Court put it in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. (2021):

Schools have many responsibilities: They must teach basic and advanced skills and information; they must do so for students of different backgrounds and abilities; they must teach students to work independently and in groups; and they must provide a safe environment that promotes learning.

Given these multiple responsibilities, school officials have wider discretion than other state actors in regulating certain types of speech. For example, they can forbid profane speech on campus (according to Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986 )) and can punish students for advocating illegal drug use (as in Morse v. Frederick (2007)). They can also censor student speech in school publications, such as school newspapers and yearbooks, see Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). More importantly, schools can censor student speech which is likely to substantially disrupt school operations ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)). Therefore, speech is not quite as free inside schools as it is outside.
1. School Publications: School Newspapers and Yearbooks
However, the limits on student speech are quite narrow, and in general, students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Tinker v. Des Moines ) See below for examples of how the First Amendment applies to schools in specific ways .

The Supreme Court has ruled that student journalists have very limited rights when they write for school-sponsored publications such as school newspapers and yearbooks. The school can censor articles for many reasons, including because school officials think that the subject is inappropriate. Some courts have even said that schools can censor editorials because school officials disagree with the views expressed in them.
2. Off-campus Publications: "Underground' Newspapers, Websites, Etc.
However, several states have laws which give greater protection to student journalists. A list of those states and links to descriptions of their legislation can be found .

Concerns about censorship in "official" school papers may prompt students to publish material produced outside of school, or on websites maintained privately without use of school facilities. Some schools have attempted to censor these publications and suppress off-campus speech they find offensive, disturbing, or unflattering. However, courts have been willing to uphold school censorship of off-campus speech only in unusual circumstances in which the speech has a very high likelihood of substantially disrupting school (such as by publishing answers to tests) or harming particular persons (such as by harassing or threatening them).

Unlike student speech in school, student speech off campus cannot be punished just because it includes profanity, or advocates illegal drug use, or for any reason other than it is very likely to substantially disrupt school. In particular, schools have limited ability to punish or censor off-campus speech about politics or religion. If an independent student publication is distributed on campus, school officials have a bit more power to confiscate or ban it, but only if there is a risk that it will cause substantial disruption of the school.

Student rights can often be limited if students use school resources (such as school computers or the school's internet service) to create or distribute publications. Students can help avoid conflict with school officials by ensuring their unofficial publications are produced and maintained separately from any school course and without school materials or teacher assistance.

Also, it is important for students who use their school's technology to know their school's "Acceptable Use Policy" (AUP). An AUP, which is often found in district guidelines or in a student handbook, sets out the rules and regulations governing student use of school computer networks. Some sample acceptable use policies can be found , but your school's policy might be different in some ways.

Since the Tinker case in 1969, students, school administrators, and courts have struggled with the boundaries and limits of student dress and grooming requirements. Beginning in the early 1970s, the courts were inundated with cases that confronted the issue, and have found few clear answers. The circuit courts remain split over the control school administrators can exercise with respect to student dress and grooming. The issue often is complicated by gender and guidelines that reinforce rigid binaries. In one case, a school disciplined a boy for wearing an earring, although earrings are permitted under the dress code for girls. Other examples are hair length restrictions for boys but not girls, or dress requirements designed to enforce notions of modesty for girls but not boys. Some public schools have required uniforms, but this has hardly solved the problem, as strict dress codes of this sort are often challenged. In contrast, gender-neutral guidelines about appropriate dress rarely result in challenges.

Since gang members often identify themselves through clothes and insignia, principals have often turned to dress codes in an effort to discourage gang membership and activities. Courts have generally held that these codes are valid.

In recent years, there s been an increasing number of cases involving off-campus student speech which has effects on-campus. Often, that speech takes place on social media. Schools cannot punish students for profane speech that takes place off-campus (except during a field trip, which courts consider part of the school). Nor can they punish students for off-campus speech which advocates illegal drug use. However, schools can sometimes punish students for off-campus speech which has a strong chance of coming on campus and disrupting school, such as racist speech when the school has a history of racial conflict. And, schools can of course punish students for off-campus speech that harasses students or school employees, or which threatens violence against the school.

A. Understanding Censorship
Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other expression that the censor (a person or institution with the power to suppress speech) does not like.

Parents and community groups often try to remove school materials that discuss sexuality, religion, race, or ethnicity-whether directly or indirectly. For example, some people object to the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in science classes because it conflicts with their own religious views. Others think schools should not allow discussion about sexual orientation or gender identities, and other people call for eliminating The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the English curriculum because they think it is racist.

As these examples show, demands for censorship originate across the entire spectrum of religious, ideological, and political opinion.

When people ask schools to censor materials, schools must balance their First Amendment duties against other concerns, such as maintaining the integrity of the educational program, meeting state education requirements, respecting the judgments of professional staff, and addressing deeply held beliefs in students and members of the community. In dealing with challenges to materials, educators are on the strongest ground if they are mindful of two fundamental principles that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized: 1) schools have broad power to decide what and how to teach, as long as their decisions are based on sound educational principles and are aimed at improving student learning; and 2) the decisions that are most vulnerable to legal challenge are those that are motivated by hostility to an unpopular or controversial idea, or by the desire to force acceptance of a particular viewpoint.

Pursuant to these principles, when someone claims in a lawsuit that a school's actions violate the First Amendment, courts generally defer to the professional judgments of educators. That means that courts will often uphold a decision to remove a book or to discipline a teacher, if the decision serves legitimate educational objectives, including administrative efficiency. However, it is equally true that schools which demands for censorship are on equally strong or stronger grounds. As the Supreme Court stated in its 2021 decision, schools have a strong interest in protecting unpopular expression, in exposing students to a wide range of views, and in giving students the opportunity to discuss those views.
B. Distinguishing Censorship from Selection
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a school official who relied on these principles and refused to accede to pressures to censor something with educational value would ever be ordered by a court of law to do so.

Schools make decisions all the time about which books and materials to include in or exclude from the curriculum. Hence, they are not violating the First Amendment every time they cross a book off a reading list. However, they could be acting unconstitutionally if they decide to remove a book solely because of hostility to the ideas it contains.

For example, administrators and faculty might agree to take discussion of evolution out of the second grade curriculum because the students lack sufficient background to understand it, and decide to introduce it in the fourth grade instead. As long as they are not motivated by hostility to the idea of teaching about evolution, this would not ordinarily be problematic. The choice to include the material in the fourth grade curriculum tends to demonstrate this was a pedagogical judgment, not an act of censorship.

However, not every situation is that simple. For example, objections to material dealing with sexuality or sexual orientation commonly surface in elementary schools and middle schools when critics claim that such material is not "age appropriate" for those students. Often, it becomes clear that their concern is not that students will not understand the material, but that they simply do not want the students to have access to that type of information. If professional educators can show a legitimate pedagogical rationale for maintaining such material in the curriculum, it is unlikely that an effort to remove it will be successful.
C. Consequences of Censorship
Moreover, while individual parents have considerable control over their own child's education and can request their child be given a different book, they have no right to impose their preferences on other students and their families.

Censorship based on individual sensitivities and concerns restricts the world of knowledge available to students. Based on personal views, some parents wish to eliminate material depicting violence, others object to references to sexuality, others to speech about racial issues or images that offend them. Some parents oppose having their children exposed to fiction that doesn't have a happy ending, teach a moral lesson, or provide positive role models. If these and other individual preferences were legitimate criteria for censoring materials used in school, the curriculum would narrow to including only the least controversial and probably least relevant and interesting material. It would hardly address students' real concerns, satisfy their curiosity, or prepare them for life.

Censorship also harms teachers. By limiting resources and flexibility, censorship hampers a teacher's ability to explore all possible avenues to motivate and "reach" students. By curtailing ideas that can be discussed in class, censorship takes creativity and vitality out of the art of teaching. Instruction is reduced to bland, formulaic, pre-approved exercises carried out in an environment that discourages the give-and-take that can spark a student's enthusiasm for learning. To maintain spontaneity in the classroom setting, teachers need latitude to respond to unanticipated questions and discussion, and the freedom to draw on their professional judgment and expertise, without fear of consequences if someone objects, disagrees, or takes offense.

School censorship is particularly harmful because it prevents young people with inquiring minds from exploring the world, seeking truth and reason, stretching their intellectual capacities, and becoming critical thinkers. When the classroom environment is not open and inviting, honest exchange of views is replaced by guarded discourse, and teachers lose the ability to reach and guide their students effectively.

A. The Numbers
How Big a Problem Is Censorship?
B. What Kind of Material Is Attacked?
The American Library Association (ALA), which tracks and reports censorship incidents, reports that there are hundreds of challenges in schools and public libraries every year. ALA estimates that roughly four or five times as many go unreported.

ALA offers an instructive analysis of the motivation behind most censorship incidents:

The term censor often evokes the mental picture of an irrational, belligerent individual. Such a picture, however, is misleading. In most cases, the one to bring a complaint to the library is a concerned parent or a citizen sincerely interested in the future well-being of the community. Although complainants may not have a broad knowledge of literature or of the principles of freedom of expression, their motives in questioning a book or other library material are seldom unusual. Any number of reasons are given for recommending that certain material be removed from the library. Complainants may believe that the materials will corrupt children and adolescents, offend the sensitive or unwary reader, or undermine basic values and beliefs. Sometimes, because of these reasons, they may argue that the materials are of no interest or value to the community.

C. What Does "Age Appropriate" Mean?
While demands for censorship can come from almost anyone and involve any topic or form of expression, most incidents involve concerns about sexual content-specifically LGBTQ+ content-religion, profanity, or racial slurs. Many incidents involve only one complaint, but nonetheless trigger a review process that can become contentious. Parents who support free expression do not step forward to participate in public discussions as frequently as those seeking to remove materials, leaving school officials and teachers relatively isolated. It is then their task to assess the pedagogical value of the materials carefully. If they give in to viewpoint-based demands, they can undermine educational objectives, as well as encourage more challenges.

One of the most common demands for censorship involves the claim that certain school materials are not "age appropriate."

Educators generally use the term "age appropriate" when they mean the point at which children have sufficient life experience and cognitive skills to comprehend certain material. For example, educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction may not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds but would be understood by 12-year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology.

However, when censors complain that a book is not "appropriate," they often mean that students shouldn't be exposed to the material for reasons of personal ideology or belief. The objection usually occurs when the material concerns sexuality and often reflects a fear that exposure to it will undermine moral or religious values. Acceding to the pressure to censor in this situation can be tantamount to endorsing one moral or religious view over another.
D. Who Gets Censored?
Responding to questions about age appropriateness, the National Council of Teachers of English noted that "materials should be suited to maturity level of the students," and that it is important to "weigh the value of the material as a whole, particularly its relevance to educational objectives, against the likelihood of a negative impact on the students... That likelihood is lessened by the exposure the typical student has had to the controversial subject."

The books targeted by censors include both popular and classic titles, affecting choices made by almost every age group. The of most challenged books in 2020 includes:
E. The Chilling Effect
Some of these titles appear on the ALA's list of most challenged works year after year. For example, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian has made the list eight times since 2010; has been on the list every year since 2016, and has been the most challenged book each of the last three years. To Kill a Mockingbird , Of Mice and Men, and The Bluest Eye have appeared periodically on the list for two decades or more.

Censorship often leads directly to self-censorship. It occurs every day. Sometimes it's obvious even if no one uses the "c" word. Sometimes it is more insidious (and less justified)-for example, when a teacher decides not to use a particular story or book or a librarian doesn't order a particular magazine because of fears about possible complaints. It is impossible to quantify the damage that self-censorship does to education. But it is common enough to have its own name: "the chilling effect." This is the idea that restricting access to information based on particular viewpoints will discourage the use of potentially controversial (or even complicated) material in the future, that teachers, for example, will avoid teaching a book just because they don't want to risk the disruption a formal complaint would cause, even if they truly believe that book would be an excellent educational choice.

A. School Officials, Boards, and State Mandates
Roles and Responsibilities: Promoting First Amendment Values at School

The school board's role is to define an educational philosophy that serves the needs of all its students and reflects community goals. In this process, most districts see a role for parents and other community members. Educational advisory boards can also assist educators in discerning the needs and perspectives of the community. Open school board meetings can keep the public informed about the school district's educational philosophy and goals, encourage comments, questions and participation, and increase community support for the schools. Although public debate about the educational system provides opportunities for community input and can assist educators in developing materials to meet students' needs and concerns, actual curriculum development and selection are tasks uniquely suited to the skills and training of professional educators. Hence, school boards should defer to the judgment of review committees composed of educators when making decisions about curricular materials.
B. Principles Governing Selection and Retention of Materials in Schools
While curriculum development relies heavily on the professional expertise of trained educators, it is also controlled by state education law and policy. Educators' choices are influenced by factors such as competency standards, graduation requirements, standardized testing, and other educational decisions made at the state level.

School officials have the constitutional duty to ensure that curriculum development and selection decisions are made without attempting to advance any particular political or religious viewpoint. School districts otherwise have broad discretion when selecting classroom instructional materials.

In contrast, policies governing school libraries and classroom resource materials place a priority on including a wider range of materials. The ALA Library Bill of Rights (1948) recognizes the library's essential role in providing resources to serve the "interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community." With minor modifications, these principles also apply in the school setting.

The considerations specifically relevant to school libraries are identified by National School Board Association guidelines:

To provide materials that will enrich and support the school's curricula;

To provide materials that will stimulate knowledge, growth, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, ethical standards, and leisure-time reading;

To provide information to help students make intelligent judgments;

To provide information on opposing sides of controversial issues so that students may develop the practice of critical reading and thinking; and

To provide materials representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups that have contributed to the American heritage.

C. Complaint Procedures
The ALA believes that library materials "should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."

All school districts should adopt formal policies and procedures for responding to complaints about materials. Formal policies clarify how the complaint process works; help faculty, staff, and administration fulfill their legal obligations; let parents and students know what criteria are used for removing materials and how they are applied; ensure that all voices are heard and considered; and protect the academic freedom of teachers.

When materials are challenged, schools with a well-articulated process for handling complaints are more likely to resist viewpoint-based censorship pressures than districts without one. Having a policy in place, and following it scrupulously, ensures that complainants will receive due process, and that challenged materials will be judged on their educational merits rather than personal opinions. It is important for teachers and administrators to be familiar with these policies and understand their importance. Armed with this knowledge, school officials are less likely to submit to pressure or react with unilateral decisions to remove books.

The most effective complaint procedures provide that:

Complaints must be made in writing.

Complainants should identify themselves both by name/address and by their interest in the material (i.e. as a parent, student, religious leader, etc.).

Complainants must have read/seen the entire work objected to.

The complaint must be specific about the reasons for the objection.

Complaints should request a specific remedy (i.e., an alternative assignment for a student, or removal/exclusion affecting the entire school community).

Complaints, standing alone, will not be considered grounds for disciplining teachers or librarians.

Complaints are adjudicated by a diverse committee of stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, parents, and students.

Challenged materials remain in the curriculum/library until the challenge is adjudicated and all appeals are completed.

A list of model policies is available here.

It is advisable for policies to contain a statement supporting intellectual and academic freedom, and an explanation of the importance of giving students access to a wide variety of material and information, some of which may be considered controversial. The policy should also specify that viewpoint-based concerns - disagreement with a specific idea or message, and personal objections to materials on religious, political, or social grounds - do not justify removal of a book or other material. Such concerns may, however, justify a parent's request that his or her child be assigned alternate material. These principles, if uniformly and consistently implemented, protect students' right to learn. They also make it possible for educators to exercise their professional judgment, and help insulate them and the school district from legal challenge and community pressure.

In order to prepare for challenges, educators should do all of the following:

School administrators and teachers should work together to develop an understanding about how they will respond if material is challenged, recognizing that it is impossible to predict what may be challenged.

Educators should have a rationale for the materials they use, especially when they think some of it is potentially controversial.

In approaching material that may be controversial, keep parents advised about what material students are using and why it has been selected.

Encourage parents with questions about curricular materials to address them to their child's teacher, and encourage teachers to be willing and available to discuss concerns with parents.

Schedule regular meetings for parents. In one innovative program in South Carolina, librarian Pat Scales invited parents to the library once a month, without students, to discuss contemporary young adult books that their children might be reading, to understand how the books helped their children grow intellectually and emotionally, and to encourage parents to use the discussion of books to spark conversation with their children. As a result, she never had a censorship problem, and she became a resource for parents seeking books to help their children address troublesome issues. (Pat Scales' book, Teaching Banned Books (ALA, 2001) describes this program in detail.)

Involve members of the community in any debate over challenged materials. Broadening the discussion usually reveals that only a small number of people object to the same book at the same time.

Support the value of intellectual and academic freedom. Conscientious teachers who are caught in a censorship dispute deserve support from their colleagues and the community. Otherwise, teachers will stick to the tried and true or the bland and unobjectionable.

For more advice on how teachers can safeguard their selection of instructional materials from successful challenges, see NCAC resources for teachers and administrators .

​
Major Educational Organizations Take a Stand for the First Amendment
Censorship Policies

Many national and international organizations concerned with elementary and secondary education have established guidelines on censorship issues. While each organization addresses censorship a little differently, each is committed to free speech and recognizes the dangers and hardships imposed by censorship. The organizations couple their concern for free speech with a concern for balancing the rights of students, teachers, and parents. Many place heavy emphasis on the importance of establishing policies for selecting classroom materials and procedures for addressing complaints. The following summarizes the censorship and material selection policies adopted by leading educational organizations.

National Education Association (NEA)

The NEA is America's oldest and largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education. Its 2.5 million members work at every level of education. Elected representatives from across the country are responsible for setting policy, which includes resolutions on selecting and developing education materials and teaching techniques. The resolutions embody NEA's belief that democratic values are best transmitted free from censorship and deplore "pre-publishing censorship, book burning crusades, and attempts to ban books from the ... curriculum." The NEA encourages its members to be involved in developing textbooks and materials and to seek the removal of laws and regulations that restrict selection of diverse materials.

The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (NCTE/IRA)

An 80,000-member organization devoted to improving the teaching and learning of English and the language arts, the NCTE offers support, advice, and resources to teachers and schools faced with challenges to teaching materials or methods. The NCTE has developed a Statement on Censorship and Professional Guidelines recognizing that English and language arts teachers face daily decisions about teaching materials and methods.

The IRA has 90,000 members worldwide, working in a variety of educational capacities. Its goal is to promote high levels of literacy by improving the quality of reading instruction and encouraging reading as a lifetime habit. The IRA supports "freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry as guaranteed by the First Amendment."

The NCTE and IRA have issued a joint statement on intellectual freedom:

all students in public school classrooms have the right to materials and educational experiences that promote open inquiry, critical thinking, diversity in thought and expression, and respect for others.

Their mutual policy sets out four principles aimed at translating the ideals of the First Amendment into classroom reality: (1) to actively support intellectual freedom; (2) to foster democratic values, critical thinking, and open inquiry; (3) to prepare for challenges with clearly defined procedures; and (4) to ensure educational communities are free to select and review classroom curricula to meet student needs.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)

The ASCD is an international organization of professional educators committed to excellence in education. Its mission is to "forge covenants in teaching and learning for the success of all learners." The ASCD recognizes the importance of balancing the rights and needs of students, teachers, and parents with freedom of expression:

When challenges arise, school officials should bear in mind that education is governed by the public . . . [Educators] should recognize the value of citizen participation and respect the right of parents to shape their children's schooling. At the same time, educators should insist that, as in other fields, professional judgment must not be completely subservient to the popular will. Educators' primary allegiance must be to the integrity of knowledge and the welfare of students.

The ASCD stresses the importance of establishing complaint procedures and affirms that materials are never to be restricted for the purpose of suppressing ideas.

American Library Association (ALA)

The ALA, "the voice of America's libraries," is dedicated to providing leadership for the "development, promotion and improvement of library and information services...in order to enhance learning and access to information for all." The ALA has a widely emulated Bill of Rights affirming all libraries as forums for information and ideas. The ALA's policies stipulate that libraries should provide materials from all points of view; challenge censorship; cooperate with free speech groups; grant access to all regardless of origin, age, background, or views; and provide exhibit space on an equitable basis. Drawing on the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights, the ALA emphasizes the importance of free speech: "We know that censorship, ignorance, and limitations on the free flow of information are the tools of tyranny and oppression. We believe that ideas and information topple the walls of hate and fear and build bridges of cooperation and understanding far more effectively than weapons and armies."

National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)

Dedicated to supporting elementary and middle-level principals and other education leaders in their commitment for all children, NAESP sets policy on curriculum and instruction. In its statement on censorship and academic freedom, "NAESP affirms the right of the student and teacher to use a wide variety of curriculum and literary materials and to explore divergent points of view." NAESP also emphasizes the importance of establishing procedures to address selection of materials and challenges to selections. These procedures are to be carried out "professionally and equitably," according to established professional criteria and the values and needs of the community.

National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)

Founded in 1974, NCAC is an alliance of over 50 national non-profit organizations-including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties group-united in their support of freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression. NCAC works with teachers, educators, writers, artists, and others around the country dealing with censorship debates in their own communities; it educates its members and the public at large about the dangers of censorship and how to oppose them; and it advances policies that promote and protect freedom of expression and democratic values. For specific advice on strengthening your book selection procedures and resisting censorship, submit a Censorship Report to NCAC at ncac.org/report-censorship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment protects both students and teachers in schools. NCAC presents the following collection of materials on the topic of censorship in schools for the use of students, educators, and parents everywhere. This information is not intended as legal advice. If you face

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
Talk to your student(s) about what is and what is not protected free speech in school.

Ensure that student(s) understand that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence.

School staff: Help encourage safe protest that is constructive rather than harmful.

Teachers: Inform students that threats must be reported and then investigated, even if said jokingly.

Parents: While you and your student(s) may have the same opinions, understand that not everyone does, and that school may not be the best place for your student to discuss certain opinions.

Teach students that using your voice for what you believe is important, but that it is also important for it to be at the right place and the right time.

Help students to fully know the limitations of their first amendment rights as it applies to students in their particular school and district.