Media Law Update 2008

Genelle Belmas, Ph.D.

Cal State Fullerton
JACC State 2008

College Student Free Press Law (AB 2581)

Amends California Education Code 66301:
Neither the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the governing board of any community college district, nor any administrator of any campus of those institutions, shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanction solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside a campus of those institutions, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.
Provides for civil actions for injunctive and declaratory relief

Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any prior restraint of student speech or the student press. Went into effect Jan. 1, 2007
Sen. Leland Yee

California Newspaper Theft Law (AB 2612)

Makes it illegal to take multiple copies of a free newspaper off the racks in California (California Penal Code Section 490.7)
No person shall take more than twenty-five (25) copies of the current issue of a free or complimentary newspaper if done with the intent to do one or more of the following:
(1) Recycle the newspapers for cash or other payment (2) Sell or barter the newspaper (3) Deprive others of the opportunity to read or enjoy the newspaper (4) Harm a business competitor

Fine, jail time for multiple violations

Third state to pass explicit law (Colorado, Maryland)

Went into effect Jan. 1, 2007

NEW: Journalism Teacher Protection Act (SB 1370)

Announced Feb. 29, 2008 by Sen. Yee Applies to both high school and college advisers Amendment to Sections 48950, 66301, and 48907 of the Education Code:
An employee shall not be dismissed, suspended, disciplined, reassigned, transferred, or otherwise retaliated against for acting to protect a pupil engaged in the conduct authorized under this section, or conduct that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Hearing date: April 8, 2008

Why protect advisers?

Reaction to an increased number of instances in California where administrators pressure, and in some cases retaliate against, advisers over student speech
We have had at least a dozen cases that we know about throughout the state where teachers have been retaliated against for some reason, so we see a huge need for this bill, Yees office said

Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said his organization asked Yee to sponsor the bill because of the continued pressure on advisers by administrators to engage in the kind of censorship that state law prohibits administrators from exercising Of the seven states with laws protecting student speech, only Colorado and Kansas have provisions for journalism advisers
If passed, SB 1370 would be the first law solely protecting journalism advisers

SB 1370 prompted by
Lane v. Simon (10CA 2007): Former KSU Collegian editors Katie Lane and Sarah Rice alleged that the reassignment of faculty adviser Ron Johnson violated their 1A rights But 10CA dismissed the case as moot because the students had graduated
Had not tried to substitute new editors as plaintiffs

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Ninth Cir. (Alaska) case High school student brought action against principal and school board, alleging that his 1A rights had been violated by a 10day suspension for waving Bong Hits 4 Jesus banner at off-campus, school-approved activity Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found for student and said that the principal could be held personally liable Two questions asked of Supreme Court:
Whether the 1A allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying certain messages at partially schoolsponsored events Whether the principal should be personally liable under civil rights legislation for disciplining the student

Court found for the principal

The special characteristics of the school environment, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse . . . allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug abuse. No need to decide on liability issue since resolved on constitutional issue But does not greatly expand administrative rights
Thomas concurrence: Would overrule Tinker, believes that students should have NO free speech rights!

Smith v. Novato Sch. Dist. (2007)

Broad interpretation of student speech rights in California HS student had written inflammatory editorial on immigration that upset some in the community
School district said it should never have been published and would forbid similar editorials to be published; ordered all remaining papers to be collected CA appeals court said that was a violation of students 1A rights

Other areas of note

New FOIA amendment to counteract Ashcroft memo requires online tracking for requests, govt arbitration for disputes, more inclusive of media Foxs indecency complaint against FCC upheld by 2CA; FCC appealed to Sup. Ct. who agreed to hear the case FCC relaxes cross-ownership rules, allowing one company to acquire both a newspaper and a TV station in the nations 20 largest markets, provided the station is not one of the top four in the market in revenue and also that there are still eight different media voices (TV stations or newspapers) postmerger FCC also established a new cap of 30 percent on the percentage of all U.S. cable TV households that may be served by any one company (Comcast to challenge)

Questions? Comments?
If youd like a copy of this presentation, please email me: gbelmas@fullerton.edu