Forums come in three types: closed, limited and open. In a closed, and in some limited forums, freedom of expression does not have to be allowed. In some limited forums and in an open forum, freedom of expression, hence civic responsibility, is the cornerstone.

An example of a closed forum is a PTA newsletter. The owner of the forum can control its content. Censorship is allowed. Little learning about the role of a free press in a democracy would take place. Little learning about the various roles of journalism would take place.

• Students have no expectation of freedom of expression.
• Students should have no expectation of learning news or objective journalism.
• Students should have no expectation of creating original pieces.
• Students should have no expectation of decision-making.
• Hazelwood applies.

A limited forum can be limited to whatever the establisher of the forum wants it to be: a forum for sports coverage, for example. It can be reviewed, or not reviewed, by the originator’s designation. If reviewed, the owner of the forum has all the legal responsibility and control. If not reviewed, the students, for example, could be designated as being in charge and bear the freedoms and the responsibility.

A good many student media fall into this category where school districts trust their students, their advisers and their curriculum. Students learn about the media’s role in a democracy, and about their own civic responsibility. If education about the media’s role in a democracy and learning critical thinking and responsibility are the school’s mission, then the second type of limited forum is used.

In a limited-closed forum:
• Students have no expectation of freedom of expression.
• Students should have no expectation of learning news or objective journalism.
• Students should have no expectation of creating original pieces.
• Students should have no expectation of decision-making.
• Hazelwood applies.

In a limited-open forum:
• Students have an expectation of freedom of expression.
• Students should expect to learn news or objective journalism.
• Students should expect to create original material.
• Students should expect to make decisions.
• Tinker applies if there is no prior review.

The third category is an open forum, much like speaker’s corner in the United Kingdom. Anyone can speak, and the school (government) bears no legal responsibility. Schools can designate student media as open forums by policy or practice. This is noted within the Hazelwood decision, as is a limited open forum with student decision-making control.

Within the open and limited forums, students would certainly not publish any materials they found to be unprotected speech, or materials containing (added for clarity) libel, obscenity, material disruption of the school process (Tinker guidelines), unwarranted invasion of privacy and copyright infringement. Students would be taught this through a journalism curriculum by a trained adviser or through workshops and seminars available to an extracurricular publication.

• Students have an expectation of freedom of expression.
• Students should expect to learn news or objective journalism.
• Students should expect to create original material.
• Students should expect to make decisions.
• Tinker applies if there is no prior review.

The Journalism Education Association has always believed students involved in print media should enjoy freedom of expression. As an extension of that, JEA also believes student use of the Internet should be free from prior review, restraint and other hindrances preventing free expression.

In particular, JEA:

1. Endorses the Student Press Law Center’s revised Model Publication Guidelines that include statements on use of the Internet and urges journalism programs and school systems to adopt the SPLC model;
2. Joins with the Internet Free Expression Alliance in working to ensure the Internet is a forum for open, diverse and unimpeded expression;
3. Strongly opposes the use of filters or blocking software that interfere with the legitimate gathering or authoring of information protected by the First Amendment and recent Supreme Court decisions. All current blocking and filtering software consistently has been shown to restrain more than unprotected speech, taking from educators valid educational decision making and often giving it to unknown parties with unknown rationale;
4. Recommends communications teachers assist administrators, parents, students and others in their understanding the importance of free expression on the Internet;
5. Urges teachers, advisers and students to be fully informed of their rights in use of the Internet, websites and acceptable use policies; and
6. Urges communications teachers and advisers to be the leaders in the shaping of their systems’ Internet policies and decision making.

Codes of Ethics for advisers as established by the Journalism Education Association:

• Model standards of professional journalistic conduct to  students, administrators and others.

• Empower students to make decisions of style, structure  and content by creating a learning atmosphere where students will actively practice critical thinking and decision making.

• Encourage students to seek out points of view and to explore a variety of information sources in their decision making.

• Support and defend a free, robust and active forum for student expression without prior review or restraint.

• Emphasize the importance of accuracy, balance and clarity in all aspects of news gathering and reporting.

• Show trust in students as they carry out their responsibilities by encouraging and supporting them in a caring learning environment.

• Remain informed on press rights and responsibilities.

• Advise, not act as censors or decision makers.

• Display professional and personal integrity in situations which might be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

• Support free expression for others in local and larger communities.

• Model effective communications skills by continuously updating knowledge of media education.

Online ethics guidelines for student media

As student media staffs explore the possibilities of digital media for gathering information and telling stories, they encounter questions of ethics both new and familiar

As a general rule, reporters should follow the same ethical principles online as they do in print. For example, identify yourself as a reporter.  Don’t lurk in social media and take information without telling the author of that information who you are, verifying the source and confirming with someone else what you learned.

These online ethics guidelines focus on situations student newspapers, yearbooks, literary magazines, news shows and other traditional storytelling forms haven’t experienced much, if at all.

These guidelines hold as fundamental belief this statement, from a policy written in 2006 by a group of professional journalists:  “Online publishing has the opportunity to serve audiences in new and meaningful ways. Journalists have an important responsibility to explore that potential as part of their constitutionally protected responsibilities to hold the powerful accountable and to serve as a public watchdog.” ¹ Student journalists reporting on any platform must continue to honor the values of truth-telling, transparency, accountability, accuracy, fairness and minimizing harm.  Applying those values to interactions with readers and sources in social media, through email, online comments and 24-7-365 digital journalism raises new questions, which these guidelines hope to address.

“In its highest form, journalism is the dissemination of accurate information and provocative commentary that puts service to the reader and the common good above any special interest or economic, political or philosophical agenda,” the professional journalists wrote. “What other form would be so worthy of such First Amendment protection?”

Prior review

The Journalism Education Association, as the nation’s largest association of scholastic journalism educators and secondary school media advisers, denounces the practice of administrative prior review as serving no legitimate educational purpose. Prior review leads only to censorship by school officials or to self-censorship by students with no improvement in journalistic quality or learning.

Better strategies exist that enhance student learning while protecting school safety and reducing school liability.

School administrators provide leadership for just about every dimension of schools. They set the tone and are crucial in a meaningful educational process. Undeniably, administrators want their schools’ graduates to be well-educated and effective citizens. Often, school or district missions statements state this goal explicitly. JEA supports them in that effort.

So, when the Journalism Education Association challenges the judgment of administrators who prior review student media, it does so believing better strategies more closely align with enhanced civic engagement, critical thinking and decision-making.

Prior review by administrators undermines critical thinking, encourages students to dismiss the role of a free press in society and provides no greater likelihood of increased quality of student media. Prior review inevitably leads to censorship. Prior review inherently creates serious conflicts of interest and compromises administrator neutrality, putting the school in potential legal jeopardy.