Oral arguments rescheduled in free press case

Oral arguments have been bumped up for a case that has the potential of allowing censorship of college press and activities throughout Midwest universities, causing a considerable amount of uproar among college press organizations.

Originally set to begin Dec. 10, arguments for the case have been moved up to Jan. 7 at the federal court house in Chicago.

The case of Hosty v. Carter has stirred concern among members of the student press, causing several groups to band together against Governor’s State University administrators.

During problems between administrators and faculty at Governor’s State University, reporters at the college newspaper The Innovator wrote articles on the conflicts, with one glitch- the university wanted to review the articles before they went to press.

The editors refused and The Innovator editor Jeni Porche, managing editor Margaret Hosty and reporter Steven Barba brought a lawsuit against the administrators for attempting to censor the newspaper in violation of the First Amendment.

If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decides in opposition of The Innovator, public colleges and universities will have the right to prior restraint, curtailing free speech rights of student-edited publications and student-run activities in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Prior restraint is a form of censorship that allows prior review and censoring.

“While it would certainly impact Governor’s State directly there’s no question it has potential to be a very serious problem,” Richard Goehler, attorney for The Innovator, has said. “It has serious ramifications.”

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, has said student press would be greatly affected by a decision if the court were to find in favor of the university.

The SPLC is a national organization that works with student journalists and is one of the organizations that has banded together with the students from The Innovator to put together a brief against Governor’s State and prior restraint.

“You can bet there’s going to be a lot more positive stories (about administrators) and a lot less meaningful stories,” Goodman has said. “I want the real version, not the university’s PR version. I would be very scared of that.”

However, not just college journalists will be affected by a court’s decision in favor of administrators. A decision in favor of the administration also would give a university the right to censor all campus activities, including plays, films and speeches, occurring on campus.

“I don’t think there’s any student on campus who wouldn’t feel the impact,” Goodman has said.

On behalf of Dean Patricia Carter, the administrator named in the suit, Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office submitted a brief arguing that student press at the college level should be subjected to the same scrutiny as at the high school level.

In 1988, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case stated high school administrators had the right to prior review and censor power over student press and activities.

To counter Ryan’s brief, the SPLC and 24 other media organizations filed a friend of the court brief stating First Amendment restrictions at the high school level should not be carried over to the college level.

The key issue that is hanging in the balance for the court in January is the argument of the university. Governor’s State officials argue that The Innovator is considered a non-public forum and therefore owned by the government and can be subject to such censorship.

However, Goehler has said he is relatively confident in the student’s case and that The Innovator should be considered a public forum.

If the court’s decision rules in favor of Ryan and Governor’s State administration, the potential to affect speech on Eastern’s campus is great.

In comparing this case to the Hazelwood case, schools did not jump to the chance of censorship once the verdict was ruled, but gradually new administrators were hired and faced too much pressure not to take advantage of such a decision.