Freedom of Expression in the Supreme Court, Essay Example

In the case of the student newspaper, the fact that the article does not feature any provocative or suggestive material is a significant point in favor of the plaintiffs, the editors of the school newspaper. An important point here is that Mr. Bill Jones, parent of an 11^th grader at the school and the individual who originally complained about the article, was effectively attempting to institute or invoke a system of “prior restraint” (Eastland, 2000, p. 133). The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint, notably in the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) (p. 133).

Prior restraint can only be upheld in “’exceptional cases,’” inasmuch as it pertains to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, both very fundamental freedoms (Eastland, 2000, p. 133). To be sure, some standards ought to be expected for a public school’s newspaper, and Mr. Bill Jones would be right to take issue with provocative or explicit material. However, in this case, the work contains nothing provocative, nothing sexually explicit, and no foul language.

The argument of Mr. Bill Jones and of the teachers seems to be, in essence, that young people should be “protected” from content such as this, because it might influence them to “experiment” sexually, which in turn might lead to delinquency and to drug use. However, it is not at all clear that anything in the article in question is conducive to such an outcome, the more since the story is clearly intended as a cautionary tale. The idea that a cautionary tale, which contains nothing explicit, would serve to encourage young people in the very pursuits that the story is designed to warn them against seems unfounded by the standards of any reasonable person.

Thus, the objections of Mr. Bill Jones and the like-minded teachers fail on substantive grounds. However, there is another part of the objection that bears careful consideration indeed: the idea that the principal should ban content from the school newspaper merely because of complaints. Simply put, does the principal have the right to suppress content that arouses objections, but that is not obscene, suggestive, or provocative? Above, it was argued that the content of the article in question does not support the claims, allegations and fears of the teachers and Mr. Jones. This question is a deeper matter, and it concerns whether or not the principal can force the suppression of a story simply because some stakeholders do not like it.

The essential problem with ruling in favor of the defendants is that to do so would infringe the freedom of the press rights of the editors and contributors, based on nothing more than unfounded claims from the defendants. It has already been established that the article in question does not endorse or feature anything explicit; thus, by the standards of any reasonable person, it should not be unsuitable for publication. Simply put, to accede to the defendants and rule in their favor would be to establish a precedent whereby voices arguing in favor of censorship are favored over voices arguing against it. To be sure, again, it would be a different matter if the material in question was obscene, explicit, or otherwise unsuitable in this context—but it is not, and that is the important distinction.

Based on the understanding of the First Amendment from Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) in particular, there can only be one constitutional verdict: in favor of the plaintiffs. The article in question does not violate the sorts of standards that ought to be expected of a public school. Simply put, the principal cannot simply suppress content that some stakeholders do not like, because he is a government employee and other stakeholders—such as the contributors to the paper—have First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press. The First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs were abridged by the principal’s actions, in a truly unconstitutional manner. As such, the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the editors for the school paper, and grants them injunctive relief.

References

Eastland, T. (Ed.). (2000). Freedom of expression in the Supreme Court: The defining cases. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.