OPINION & EDITORIAL
Appealing interests
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Hosty decision sets poor precedent (February 28, 2006)
- Court flawed in student paper ruling (October 27, 2005)
- Circuit court, Vilas' silence threaten free journalism (September 26, 2002)
- Hosty decision affects student papers (September 7, 2005)
- Supreme Court affirms power of the purse (March 7, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, September 1, 2005
This summer, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a significant case regarding the limitations of First Amendment freedoms for college journalists on university campuses. In Hosty v. Carter, the court held that student newspapers subsidized by public universities can be subject to prior review, as they are not in a public forum.
We agree with the legal reasoning in Hosty.
The court applied Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier — a 1988 Supreme Court case that gives high schools the means to censor student publications — to college campuses. As such, the court used a forum analysis to establish when a university could censor a student newspaper. In determining when to limit speech, one must decide whether a college journalist, when writing for a campus newspaper, is speaking in a public forum — a place that has traditionally been open to free expression without censorship. If the speech does not take place in a public forum, then the journalist is likely speaking in a limited-public forum, where a government entity may limit the subject matter.
In Hosty, the student newspaper was clearly operating in a limited forum, as it was subsidized by the university.
Though the decision has been viewed by some as a setback for collegiate free speech, the court did not prevent universities from designating student newspapers, by policy or practice, as “public forums.” Such action would avert a perceived infringement on students’ First Amendment rights.
We hope university administrators do not take advantage of the court’s ruling. Institutions of higher education have often been hailed for creating a “marketplace of ideas,” a venue where the free flow of thinking and information can take place. To censor a forum in a college setting — such as a student newspaper — for anything more than libel, slander or false statements would do nothing but close off the market’s channels. More specifically, the court’s decision should not be seen as an unlimited pass for universities to cherry-pick what they prefer to see in a student newspaper — even if the speech is critical of the hand that feeds the publication.
Nonetheless, the court’s decision affirms the importance of college newspapers to become financially and editorially independent of a university. A true public forum can exist only when a university’s purse strings and voice are not attached to a student newspaper.
