Using "The Trial Of John Peter Zenger" To Teach Journalism Topics and the First Amendment.

A Presentation by Professor Don H. Corrigan, Webster University School of Communications - St. Louis, Mo.

Program Summary: The Trial Of John Peter Zenger

Films and film excerpts are excellent classroom aids for teaching all aspects of journalism - and this is because so many movies have been made about journalism and its practice. Journalism has been a rich source of fascination - almost an obsession - for Hollywood.

From the early version of "The Front Page," made in 1931, to a spate of movies made in the 1990s, including "The Paper," the film industry has continued to show an unflagging confidence that it can capture an audience with the tales of men and women who work in the nation's press. Television, too, has shown an interest in the world of journalism, as embodied in a variety of weekly sitcoms and special, made-for-television movies.

In this edition of Films Across The Curriculum, we take a look at the Westinghouse Studio One production of "The Trial Of John Peter Zenger," from the early days of television. One of the first made-for-television movies, the production celebrates National Printing Week with a historic recounting of the story of Zenger and his legal problems. Zenger's legal difficulties resulted when he defied British rule in the colonies and printed materials unflattering to King George and his surrogates In New York.

The Zenger case is so important to American historians and champions of the First Amendment because it represented a strong repudiation of British libel law and also marked an important fissure in the relationship between the American colonies and the mother country. The Zenger story continues to be an inspiration today for journalists attempting to publish the truth in the face of an unreceptive audience or hostile authorities. The Zenger case is often included in the early chapters of many college texts on mass media, and is also covered prominently in college texts on media law in America.

In this edition of Films Across The Curriculum, we examine the made-for-television movie and discuss how accurately it portrays the actual events in Colonial America. We also note that, "The Trial Of John Peter Zenger," is just one example of a number of movies that try to capture the world of journalism. The discussion concludes with an examination of the "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier" case which made its way through the courts in the 1980s. In the Hazelwood case, student journalists in a suburban St. Louis High School attempted to publish news that the school authorities found unacceptable.

Just like Zenger's lawyer, the attorneys for the student journalists in the Hazelwood controversy made the case in court that what the students published was true and should not be suppressed. The students lost at the circuit level; won their case at the appeals level; but lost when the U.S. Supreme Court decided against the students by a 5-3 margin in the now landmark 1988 decision. Students and civil libertarians continue to oppose the Supreme Court decision and argue that the First Amendment does not stop at the classroom door. In some states, they have successfully counteracted Hazelwood by passing so-called "Student Free Expression Laws," which provide the student press with more protections against unwarranted meddling and censorship by school authorities. At the same time, this legislation recognizes the obligation of the student press to act responsibly and to avoid libel, privacy, obscenity and other press law infractions.

Background Information: Trial Of John Peter Zenger

Films and film excerpts are excellent classroom aids and "The Trial of John Peter Zenger," while somewhat quaint and unsophisticated, is still no exception. The film is a great catalyst for classroom discussion about journalism history and legal principles governing journalism in America.

John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant in the colonies. He came to New York in 1710 as an indentured servant - a thirteen-year-old boy working for the printer William Bradford. Zenger eventually became independent and set up his own print shop to do quality print jobs for attorneys and local colonial government.

Zenger did not write the articles that made him so unpopular with the royal authorities in New York, and which ran him afoul of the British mandates on libel and sedition. But he did spend eight months in prison for printing the materials that the authorities found so distasteful. Zenger's newspaper was called the New York Weekly Journal, established in 1733 and in obvious opposition to Governor William Cosby and his followers. The paper published inflammatory writings in a time when the law held "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." British law maintained that truth was no defense in a libel case, and a libel could be anything uncomplimentary or which diminished the authority of the Crown or the Ecclesiastic authorities.

The made-for-television movie, "The Trial of John Peter Zenger," provides a number of insights into this business of printing in the colonial period. There is the old flatbed press, which is a part of the American folklore of journalism development in the United States. Zenger's press was not the first, or the last, to be damaged or destroyed by those unhappy with the old flatbed's literary output. The atmosphere in Zenger's pressroom as portrayed in the movie, complete with a Printer's Devil who handled the dirty work, gives the portrayal a ring of authenticity.

The central relationship between John Peter Zenger and his wife, Anna, may or may not be an embellishment in the made for television movie. It is uncertain whether she actually made the trip to Philadelphia to implore famous attorney Andrew Hamilton to take up her husband's case. What most certainly is an embellishment in the made-for-television movie is the portrayal of the royal authorities as effeminate, oafish and incompetent. Nevertheless, they were caught off guard when Hamilton made a special plea for Zenger before a colonial jury.

It was the radical James Alexander and his allies who did the writing that found printer's ink on the old flatbed press, but it was Zenger who was arrested and imprisoned for the attacks made upon the royal governor. Retired lawyer Hamilton was prevailed upon by Zenger's backers to come to New York and argue the case before a jury. This Hamilton did, arguing that evidence as to the truth of the statements alleged to be libelous or defamatory should be admitted in court. The made-for-television movie relies on actual transcripts of the case in putting together the script for the trial scenes.

A verdict of not guilty was brought in, shocking the royal authorities in New York and giving a hint of the rebellion to come. Zenger was freed from his lengthy stay in prison. According to journalism historian Calder Pickett in his, "Voices of the Past," the outcome of the Zenger case established the concept of truth as a defense in libel and was, at least symbolically, established as part of the American tradition, though it took several generations for it to receive more official sanction in the law of the new land.

The Zenger case involved libel as defamation because the words printed by Zenger held the royal authorities up to contempt and ridicule. More importantly, the case involved seditious libel because the words in question were considered to be treasonous and disloyal.

The Zenger case has had an impact in both areas of law: defamation and sedition. It has inspired the courts to declare various sedition laws as unconstitutional. It also has inspired the courts to accept truth as a near absolute defense in cases of libel. Many states have written libel statutes that acknowledge truth as a defense in defamation cases.

Study Questions For Teachers and Students

1.) What could explain the number of films about journalists and journalism that have been made by both the television industry and Hollywood? How many movies about journalism or journalists can you you remember watching in recent years?

2.) Why do historians find the John Peter Zenger case to be a landmark event in the colonial period before the Revolutionary War broke out against England?

3.) John Peter Zenger operated a flatbed press. What are the origins of the flatbed press? When did the cylinder press arrive on the scene in America to begin the phaseout of the old flatbed press such as that operated by Zenger?

4.) Zenger reportedly started out his career as a "printer's devil" for the famous colonial printer William Bradford. What is a printer's devil? What remarkable American, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a renowned inventor, started is career in journalism as a printer's devil?

5.) How did the British authorities seek to neutralize Zenger as a political appointment after he was clapped into jail? What offer did they make to him? What was Zenger's response to the offer that was made?

6.) Colonial historians make the point that in America's early days, the print medium was probably less influential on public opinion than the so-called oral tradition. What evidence is there of this so-called "oral tradition" in the made-for-television movie, "The Trial Of John Peter Zenger"?

7.) After Zenger is clapped in jail, his wife, Anna, continues to do his work on the printing press. In the movie version of the Zenger story, Anna Zenger states that printing was just a job for her at first, but it became a mission after her husband was imprisoned. Recall some other press figures from the colonial and civil war period - journalistic heroes who found a passion and a mission in their work with the printed word.

8.) While attorney Andrew Hamilton was both courteous and deferential to the royal court in which the Zenger case was tried, he nevertheless defied the British idea of what constitutes a seditious libel. According to the British tradition, what was the standard for establishing that a seditious libel had been committed? What defense did Hamilton provide for Zenger against the charge of seditious libel leveled against him?

9.) How did the outcome of the Zenger case influence later communications law in America in the legal areas of sedition and defamation? The Zenger case is often included in the beginning chapters of college mass media law texts in journalism. Why does the Zenger case merit this treatment?

10.) What was the 1988 Supreme Court decision in the "Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, and what did this decision say about First Amendment protections for the student press? Are there any lessons from the John Peter Zenger case that can apply to the student press situation in Hazelwood, or are these totally different situations separated by several hundred years of history?

Additional Films Exploring Journalism Issues

Movies about journalism come in a variety of genres, including issue-oriented dramas, tales of foreign correspondence, the Front Page sequels, broadcast journalism treatments, dark comedies, romantic comedies and even musicals. Movie excerpts from any one of the genres can be useful in the classroom in the right context. The more serious movies are obviously the most appropriate for courses involving social and political issues, legal and ethical problems or the difficulties of foreign correspondence.

Here is a short list of movies from two genres - issue-oriented dramas and tales of foreign correspondence - that may be useful resources in the classroom. These lists are more of a sampling than an exhaustive accounting of film productions in particular areas.

Citizen Kane (1941) Based loosely on the life of William Randolph Hearst, this movie was incredibly controversial upon its release and remains a classic. Editor/publisher Orson Welles at first seems to be in a quest for journalistic truth with his "Declaration of Principles," but he ends up seeking power for himself and fame for his actress/mistress. The story line gives insights into the age of yellow journalism.

Call Northside 777 (1948) Reporter Jimmy Stewart, encouraged by a sympathetic editor and an understanding wife, pursues the story of a man wrongly accused. Stewart proves the imprisoned man's innocence with investigative reporting and clears him of murder charges.

While The City Sleeps (1956) An energetic reporter Dana Andrews runs down the story of a serial killer while juggling a romantic relationship with his girlfriend. His success with the story pays off in any number of ways, including his securing a promotion and winning his girlfriend's hand in marriage.

Medium Cool (1969) This is a cult classic of the 1960s. An inquisitive television photographer dispassionately films a series of stories, but gradually becomes emotionally involved in the stories he shoots. The movie culminates in the Chicago police riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He fights with his editor and joins up with a woman caught up in the riot scenes of Chicago in 1968.

All The President's Men (1976) The classic story of Watergate and the downfall of President Richard M. Nixon with movie celebrities playing Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post. Reporters Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman break the political scandal story with the excellent mentoring of editor Jason Robards.

The China Syndrome (1979) Reporter Jane Fonda, with the aid of photographer Michael Douglas, pursues the story of nuclear engineer Jack Lemmon. Lemmon is convinced his nuclear plant is unsafe and may even pose a China Syndrome meltdown danger. Fonda gets the story despite her shallow and sexist editor.

Absence of Malice (1981) Reporter Sally Field, a novice scoop dedicated to getting the big story, tries to uncover the possible wrongdoing of businessman Paul Newman. The unfolding story covers journalistic issues ranging from unidentified sources, libel law and media ethics.

The Paper (1994) A story of modern tabloid journalism in New York with editor Michael Keaton seeking to bring some respectability to his paper by breaking a big story. He hopes to exonerate two ghetto youth of charges of murder. Among the many obstacles to his story is the opposition of rival editor Glenn Close who wants to kill Keaton's story.

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) Indonesia in turmoil is the setting for this Third World drama covered by reporter Mel Gibson. Gibson tries to cover the story of a communist rebellion, but he betrays his loyal sidekick Linda Hunt in the process and the woman he loves, Sigourney Weaver.

Under Fire (1983) Nick Nolte is a free-lance photographer who gets the photo shot of his career in Nicaragua as the Sandinistas close in on a floundering Samoza dictatorship. Unfortunately, Nolte has faked the photograph with the assistance of his lover, reporter Joanna Cassidy. Veteran reporter Gene Hackman, who also loves Cassidy, loses his life when he becomes embroiled in the turmoil and confusion of reporting Nicaragua.

The Killing Fields (1983) Reporter Sam Waterson pursues the story of the fall of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge for the New York Times. His single-minded pursuit of the story makes him reckless about the safety of his Cambodian friend and assistant, Haing S. Ngor, who is almost killed in the aftermath of the communist takeover.

Salvador (1985) Death squads, murder and mayhem constitute the backdrop of this film about civil war in El Salvador, and the attempts of reporter James Woods and his sidekick James Belushi to cover it. Woods tries unsuccessfully to smuggle his Salvadoran girlfriend out of the country and to safety in the United States.

Censorship Of The Student Press

Censorship and the obstacles to pursuing and publishing important stories are a common theme in most serious films about journalism. In "The Trial Of John Peter Zenger," royal authorities in the colony of New York seek to suppress embarrassing information. In "All The President's Men," political cronies of the Nixon Administration impede the investigation of the Watergate story. In "Under Fire," attempts to get the story of Nicaraguan troops quashing a citizen uprising can get a reporter killed.

While student journalists in America are seldom involved in the high stakes dramas involving freedom of the press as portrayed in these movies, they do occasionally run afoul with principals, school boards and superintendents because of the stories that they publish or that they seek to publish. Such was the case in the 1980s with the Spectrum, the newspaper of the Hazelwood School District that was censored. The student journalists, including editor Cathy Kuhlmeier, challenged the censorship by school authorities in the courts. The issue of the First Amendment rights of students reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988.

In the case of the Hazelwood student newspaper, the principal censored two stories. One concerned student pregnancies and included interviews with three unidentified female students. The other dealt with the effects of divorce on students in school. The principal feared the stories were too mature for a high school audience and might involve invasions of privacy. (They were subsequently printed in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.)

In the Hazelwood case, the Supreme Court overturned a decision in favor of the student journalists by the Appeals Court. The High Court ruled in favor of the right of principals to censor student newspaper material that they might find embarrassing or inconsistent with school policy. The justices divided 5 to 3 in their decision.

Justice William Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion and admonished the justices in the majority for attempting to leave the First Amendment at the classroom door. Brennan argued that by allowing school officials to censor student speech for speculative reasons, the Court could turn "public schools into 'enclaves of totalitarianism' that 'strangle the free mind at its source'... The young men and women of Hazelwood East expected a civics lesson, but not the one the Court teaches them today."

The made-for-television movie, "The Trial of John Peter Zenger," may assume more relevance for high school students, particularly those working on the student newspaper, when examined in the light of the Hazelwood decision. A useful exercise is to compare the historical circumstances of the Zenger case with the modern-day court decision involving the students publishing the Spectrum at Hazelwood. Another useful exercise is to compare the court transcripts of the Zenger case with the transcripts of the Hazelwood proceedings as well as the opinions of the judges at each level of the Hazelwood censorship battle.

The battle over the Hazelwood decision is far from over. Student journalists and their supporters are attempting to pass Student Free Expression Bills, to counteract the Hazelwood Supreme Court decision, in states across the country. In the Midwest, such legislation has been passed into law in Arkansas and Kansas. A bill in Missouri has not had much success. Missouri proponents of the bill say they plan to revive their efforts in 2002, when the effect of term limits will result in new legislators to take a fresh look at the Missouri Free Expression Bill.

What follows is a story written for St. Louis Journalism Review that covers the defeat of the Missouri Free Expression Bill in 1993. The story is useful here in giving details of the proposed legislation and the original Hazelwood case itself. Also, it helps explain how state legislation can supercede a Supreme Court decision in this First Amendment case.

Missouri legislators decided on April 21 that freedom of the press does not extend to high school students working on their school newspapers. By a vote of 76 to 55, the Missouri House defeated a measure proposed by Rep. Joan Bray, D-University City, which would have prevented school administrators from censoring material in the student press for being too controversial or political.

Opponents of the bill called it an "ivory tower amendment" and suggested that it was tantamount to "giving kids loaded machine guns." Opponents also argued that the bill would weaken the authority of school administrators, and allow students to publish material that could be inflammatory, in poor taste, and open to legal actions.

Bray attempted to attach her proposal as an amendment to a bill sponsored by Rep. Craig Hosmer, D-Springfield. Hosmer's bill to revise the Missouri Open Meetings Law would clarify which public bodies are subject to the law. Hosmer's measure received first-round approval in the House.

Bray told SJR that she has been flabbergasted by the reactions to the bill by some of her colleagues, and by their rhetoric. She noted that even though the bill spells out very clearly that students may not publish or broadcast obscene or slanderous material, some legislators continue to insist that the Student Free Expression Bill would give students a license to libel and to disrupt the learning environment. However, according to the bill, articles or broadcasts that encouraged unlawful acts, violation of school regulations "or disruption of the orderly operation of the school" could not be expressed, published or distributed.

"It's amazing to me how some of the legislators think," said Bray. "They imagine the worst case scenarios and imagine the worst kind of kid in charge of the school newspaper," said Bray. "It's a pretty extremist kind of position to me. But I think a lot of people who opposed the bill are really into 'control,' and concerned about 'control issues.'"

The intent of Bray's bill is to supercede the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the student newspaper at Hazelwood East High School. The 1988 Supreme Court Hazelwood ruling allows for principals, superintendents and school board administrators to censor or "edit" the content of high school newspapers. This "editing" can go beyond what might be deemed as potentially libelous or defamatory, to what might be considered as too mature or too controversial in the
opinion of administrators. Student expression decisions prior to Hazelwood placed a much greater burden on administrators to justify any actions that would curtail student press rights.

The Hazelwood case had its genesis more than a decade ago. When the May 13, 1982 edition of the Spectrum newspaper hit the stands at Hazelwood East, student editors were surprised to see that two pages from their original galley proofs had not been printed. Principal Gene Reynolds conceded he deleted the two pages and did so, he contested in court, because he felt two of the articles on the pages were too controversial for a high school audience and also contained unbalanced reporting.

One of the articles discussed the effects of divorce on high school students and also included quotes from various pupils on the impact of divorce. The other article in question was about teenage pregnancy and included quotes from some of Hazelwood's pregnant teens, though they were not attributed by name in the article.

The student editors filed suit against the Hazelwood School District on Jan. 24, 1984, arguing that the school newspaper is a public forum for free expression, and that the district had violated their First Amendment rights by using prior restraint to remove articles from the newspaper. The initial decision on the case, rendered on May 9, 1985, in the court of Judge John F. Nangle, held that the school newspaper was not a public forum, but part of the school's curriculum, and therefore the district had the authority to engage in prior restraint to remove articles deemed educationally unsound.

The students appealed the district court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, where it was reversed. The Appeals Court held that the students' First Amendment rights were violated, and that the court recognized the school newspaper as a public forum. Also, it was determined that the two articles deleted from the paper would not have disrupted classwork, created disorder, or invaded other students' rights. The court ordered the school administrators to give notice to students when altering or deleting any questionable articles.

The Hazelwood School District appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court abandoned the reasoning of the Tinker precedent used by the Appeals Court, and decided that the school district had the right to control the newspaper as a part of the curriculum, to protect students from viewpoints that were thought to be objectionable, and to disassociate the district from some types of student expression. Thus, the Supreme Court decided that the students do not share the same press freedom as adults, saying that:

"First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside of school."

The decision was enunciated by Justice Byron R. White for the majority of the court. Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Harry A. Blackmun dissented, saying that Justice White was "deviating from precedent to uphold brutal censorship."

Some legislators, who opposed Bray's bill, say they cannot conceive how a state bill on student expression could have more authority than the Supreme Court Hazelwood ruling. Mark Goodman, who directs the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C., has helped guide free expression bills through legislatures in a half-dozen states. Goodman said confusion over the reach of hazelwood is common.
"Everybody asks how as state legislature decision can supercede what the Supreme Court says," noted Goodman. "But all the Supreme Court said was that these student rights do not exist under the First Amendment. The court's action doesn't stop states from acting individually to extend or expand student free expression privileges.
"It's the same situation as well, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned," explained Goodman. "All the court will be saying is that the right to have an abortion is not protected by the Constitution. That won't mean states can't act individually to protect the right to have an abortion."

Expert Testimony

One outspoken critic of free expression legislation for the student press is Gene Reynolds, former principal of Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County. Reynolds has lobbied and spoken out personally against such legislation. Reynolds' boss at the time of the Hazelwood newspaper incident, Superintendent Francis Huss, testified in Jefferson City against the bill.

An outspoken supporter of the bill has been Franklin McCallie, principal of Kirkwood High School. McCallie testified in Jefferson City earlier this year in the midst of a heated school board election in the R-7 Kirkwood High School District. McCallie's views became an issue in the election, and some Kirkwood residents criticized McCallie for going to the state capitol and advocating a bill "that would give students a license to print anything they want."

McCallie said the Hazelwood decision has given ammunition to those who feel administrators should act as censors of school newspapers. And with the Hazelwood ruling, that censorship can go beyond legitimate restriction of obscene and libelous statements, to the elimination of anything which might be perceived as a potential cause of controversy or discomfort for school officials. McCallie said the Hazelwood decision is a disaster for any educational philosophy that would empower students to examine important issues and to think for themselves.

Bray praised the testimony of McCallie, as well as that of a number of high school students from all over the state who appeared before the legislature. She singled out Amy Zeman, 15, of Brentwood, as an especially effective advocate of the bill.
"If nothing else, the bill has brought forth some eloquent testimony about the First Amendment and whether it applies to young people," said Bray. "There has been vigorous discussion on both sides of the issue, and surprisingly not all students are for it. A group from Boys State is coming to Jefferson City this summer, and one of their projects is going to be to divide up for a debate about this bill. I think I'm going to come back to Jefferson City to watch it.

"I will absolutely reintroduce the bill next year," added Bray. "You can't give up on things like this. It took 17 years to get day care regulation through. The vote was fairly close and that was encouraging. We've got some work to do, but this bill will be back before the legislature."

Student journalists at the college level may think their journalistic efforts are immune from the kind of censorship that the Hazelwood students encountered with their articles in the Spectrum. That thinking would be wrong. There have been a number of efforts to extend the long arm of the Hazelwood Decision to stifle or censor the work of college level journalists. The most notable recent example of this involved student journalists at Kentucky State University.

What follows is a story written for St. Louis Journalism Review in 2001 that covers the Kentucky State University censorship case and the attempt to apply the Hazelwood ruling to college publications. The story is useful here in giving details of the case and court actions reversing the application of Hazelwood restrictions to college journalism.

COURT SAYS KSU VIOLATED FIRST AMENDMENT
by Don Corrigan

In the 1988 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the First Amendment's reach stops at a high school's classroom door. A similar attempt to halt First Amendment freedoms at the college gates has now been repudiated.

University journalists and their campus newspaper advisers are hailing the Jan. 5 ruling of a panel of federal appellate court judges who rejected the application of high school-based Hazelwood standard to college student media.

In what appears to be a landmark ruling, the judges said Kentucky State University officials violated the First Amendment when they confiscated the student yearbook, The Thorobred, because of the book's content and quality.

"KSU officials' confiscation of the yearbook violates the First Amendment and the university has no constitutionally valid reason to withhold distribution of the 1992-94 Thorobred from KSU students from that era," wrote Judge R. Guy Cole for the majority.

The Jan. 5 ruling in the Kincaid v. Gibson case by a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati was being watched closely by school officials and student media across the country. A contrary ruling would have given university officials unprecedented power to censor student media and other forms of student expression on campus.

A coalition of civil rights groups, media outlets and journalism education organizations, including every accredited journalism program in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee - the states within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit - had urged the court to strike down KSU administrators' actions as ill-conceived and unconstitutional.

In its 10-3 ruling, the appeals court majority noted a number of Supreme Court decisions that have found that the "university environment is the quintessential 'marketplace of ideas' which merits full, or indeed heightened, First Amendment protection" and rejected any application of Hazelwood to the college press issue.
"Nearly 13 years to the day after the Supreme Court allowed school officials greater censorship authority over the expression of many high school students, the court today has drawn a clear and strong line saying that such censorship must stop at the college gate," said Student Press Law Center (SPLC) Executive Director Mark Goodman.

The court soundly rejected KSU administrators' argument that school officials were entitled to confiscate the yearbook because they were disappointed with the publication's quality and content.

Background On Kincaid

The case decided early this year follows a Sept. 8, 1999 decision by a divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court that found that KSU officials had not violated student First Amendment rights.

The case decided Sept. 8 focused on KSU's 1994 yearbook, which was seized by the vice president of student affairs at KSU. The official, Betty Gibson, confiscated the university yearbook and withheld the publication from distribution.

Two students filed a lawsuit against KSU arguing that their First Amendment rights had been violated. One of the students served as editor of the Thorobred yearbook. The other was a school newspaper reporter who argued that he had paid a student activity fee which entitled him to a yearbook copy.

Legal counsel for the university contended that the yearbooks were withheld because of "poor quality" and not for any reasons of "ideology or any opinion in them." Gibson reportedly objected to the theme and title of the yearbook and pictures of current events unrelated to day-to-day happenings at the university. She also took issue with the color of the yearbook's cover.

A lower court ruled in 1997 in favor of university officials and against the students. In that ruling, a district judge held that the yearbook was not a public forum and that the officials had a right to okay its content before distributing it.

In September 1999, appellate judges Alan E. Norris and James L. Ryan echoed the reasoning of the lower court, maintaining that college publications were bound by the same restrictions placed on high school newspapers by Hazelwood.

Enunciating the appeals court's opinion, Judge Norris stated: "It is no doubt reasonable that KSU should seek to maintain its image to potential students, alumni and the general public. In light of the undisputedly poor quality of yearbook, it is also reasonable that KSU might cut its losses by refusing to distribute a university publication that might tarnish, rather than enhance, that image."

Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. strongly disagreed with the other judges' decision to apply Hazelwood to a college case. Wrote Cole: "It is worth emphasizing that the Supreme Court in that case was addressing the scope of the First Amendment in the context of high school student publications," he wrote. "I believe that there is reason for courts to afford colleges and universities greater deference than they do high schools."
Cole's dissenting opinion - and outcries from various press freedom groups - apparently influenced the full panel of judges on the Sixth Circuit Court. In a rarely exercised legal procedure, the Court of Appeals threw out its initial decision in November 1999 and agreed to rehear the case before a larger panel of judges.

Narrow Escape

According to SPLC's Goodman, the decision by the Court of Appeals to throw out its initial decision and to rehear the case represented a narrow escape for the college press. Had the initial 2-1 decision been allowed to stand, the Hazelwood application would have emboldened college administrators across the country to tamper with campus press freedoms.

Since the original 2-1 decision against KSU student journalists, Goodman has argued in forums across the country that the Sept 8 decision was an affront to free expression on at least four counts:

The decision held that colleges are on an approximate level with high schools when it comes to free speech issues.

• The decision gave administrators arbitrary power to censor for "quality" reasons; an adverb gone astray can be a cover for clamping down on campus expression that causes university officials a degree of discomfort.
  
• The decision held that students have no legal ability to contest the removal of a media adviser who is removed for failure to carry out censorship orders by administrators.
  
• The decision made no legal distinction between a yearbook and a newspaper, a theater performance, art shows, film programs, speakers on campus and faculty speech.
  

Goodman said he was shocked by the language in the original Court of Appeals decision and its failure to provide any justification for why Hazelwood should apply to the college press. He said efforts to fight the 1988 Hazelwood decision must be redoubled, because there's always a "trickle-up-effect" whenever there is a curtailment of First Amendment rights at any level.

"It took some time, but this court finally got this case right," said Goodman of the Jan. 5 decision. "As this court's decision indicates, the very idea that books have been locked away by government officials on a public university campus for the past six years so that students cannot read them is more reminiscent of a Third-World dictatorship than our American democracy.

"Kentucky State University will now have to live down its reputation as the university that attempted to bring an end to the free expression rights of college students," added Goodman. "I can only hope that this ruling will serve as a wake-up call to other colleges and universities in the country inclined to censor the student press."

Additional Resources For Related Study

Bibliography For Research On Journalism Films And Issues

Barris, A. (1976) Stop The Presses! South Brunswick, NJ: A.S. Barnes.
Corrigan, D. (1999) The Public Journalism Movement In America: Evagelists In The Newsroom CT: Praeger
Denzin, N.K. (1995) The Cinematic Society Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Books.
Ghiglione, L. The American Journalist: Paradox Of The Press Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.
Good, H. Outcasts: The Image Of Journalists In Contemporary Film Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Martin, J.B. (1985) Ben Hecht: Hollywood Screenwriter Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Press.
Merrill, J.C. (1974) The Imperative Of Freedom: A Philosophy Of Journalistic Autonomy NY: Hastings House.
Schatz, T. (1981) Hollywood Genres NY: McGraw Hill.
Silver, A., Ward, E. (Eds.) (1992) Film Noir NY: Overlook Press.
Vaughn, S., Evensen, B. (1991) "Democracy's Guardians: Hollywood's Portraits Of Reporters, 1930-1945" Journalism Quarterly, 68, pp. 829-838.
Zynda, T.H. (1979) "The Hollywood Version: Movie Portrayals Of The Press" Journalism History, 6, pp. 16-25.

Useful Links For Articles On Censorship And Journalism Issues

http://www.splc.org/
http://www.webster.edu/~corrigdh
http://www.mediahistory.com/
http://www.www.newseum.org/
http://www.freedomforum.org/
http://www.facsnet.org/
http://www.journalism.org/daily/index.html
http://www.media.mit.edu/MediaLab/Welcome.html
http://www.journalism.org//ccj/index.html
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/nieman.html
http://ajr.newslink.org/menu.html
http://www.mediainfo.com/ephome/index/nihtm/home.html

Continue on to:
The Scarlet Letter
Paisan
The Trial Of John Peter Zenger
Zero de Conduite
Birth Of A Nation