=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/media.control =============== q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a public university can do anything it wants with the media that it owns, right? a: Like any organization, the government must work within its charter (the Constitution). The Supreme Court has said that this limits the Government's authority to control the media that owns and controls. The rationale is that it would be dangerous for a Government that is elected by the people to have too much control on what the people can say and read. The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." For example, viewpoint-based discrimination is forbidden. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd ================= Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471. A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine (to a school newspaper). ================= law/stanley-v-magrath ================= Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression." Also, "school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content" and "the content of a school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student publications. ================= law/student-publications.misc ================= Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities. ================= law/constraints.constitutional ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." ================= law/doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= law/rust-v-sullivan ================= The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be allowed. ================= law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents ================= In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths). ================= law/perry-v-perry ================= Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.) Also, a paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to the oaths a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.] ================= law/constitution.us ================= The Constitution of the United States ================= ================= These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/law/san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd pub/academic/law/stanley-v-magrath pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan pub/academic/law/keyishian-v-board-of-regents pub/academic/law/perry-v-perry pub/academic/law/constitution.us To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file name): send acad-freedom/law san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd send acad-freedom/law stanley-v-magrath send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send acad-freedom/law doe-v-u-of-michigan send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan send acad-freedom/law keyishian-v-board-of-regents send acad-freedom/law perry-v-perry send acad-freedom/law constitution.us