Colors of fall harvesting

Impact-4
Creativity-4
Style-4
Composition-3
Color Balance/Tone Balance-4
Center of Interest-2
Lighting-4
Subject Matter-3
Print Quality-4
Technique-3
Storytelling Quality-3
Print Presentation-4
Total Score: ÷ 12 = 3.5
Average Grade-3.5

Disaster flood

Impact-3
Creativity-2
Style-3
Composition-4
Color Balance/Tone Balance-3
Center of Interest-4
Lighting-3
Subject Matter-4
Print Quality-4
Technique-3
Storytelling Quality-4
Print Presentation-4
41÷ 12 =3.4
Avrage score-3.4

Fx News

Iowas Freedom of Expression Act

In addition to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states can provide additional free speech protection their own citizens by enacting state laws or regulations. The Iowa Student Free Expression Law is such a provision and provides student journalists attending Iowa public high schools with added protection against administrative censorship.

Section 280.22 — Student exercise of free expression

1. Except as limited by this section, students of the public schools have the right to exercise freedom of speech, including the right of expression in official school publications.

2. Students shall not express, publish, or distribute any of the following:

a. Materials which are obscene.

b. Materials which are libelous or slanderous under chapter 659.

c. Materials which encourage students to do any of the following:

(1) Commit unlawful acts.

(2) Violate lawful school regulations.

(3) Cause the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.

3. There shall be no prior restraint of material prepared for official school publications except when the material violates this section.

4. Each board of directors of a public school shall adopt rules in the form of a written publications code, which shall include reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of conducting such activities within its jurisdiction. The board shall make the code available to the students and their parents.

5. Student editors of official school publications shall assign and edit the news, editorial, and feature content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section. Journalism advisers of students producing official school publications shall supervise the production of the student staff, to maintain professional standards of English and journalism, and to comply with this section.

6. Any expression made by students in the exercise of free speech, including student expression in official school publications, shall not be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and the public school district and school employees or officials shall not be liable in any civil or criminal action for any student expression made or published by students, unless the school employees or officials have interfered with or altered the content of the student speech or expression, and then only to the extent of the interference or alteration of the speech or expression.

7. “Official school publications” means material produced by students in the journalism, newspaper, yearbook, or writing classes and distributed to the student body either free or for a fee.

8. This section does not prohibit a board of directors of a public school from adopting otherwise valid rules relating to oral communications by students upon the premises of each school.

Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier

The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications.

The high school paper was published as part of a journalism class. The principal at Hazelwood usually reviewed the school paper before it was published, and in this case he deleted two pages that had been written for the next edition of the school paper.

One of the deleted articles covered the issue of student/teen pregnancy and included interviews with three students who had become pregnant while attending school. (There was also an article about several students whose parents had been divorced, however the students’ names were not disclosed in the article.) To keep the students’ identity secret, the staff used pseudonyms instead of the students’ names. The principal said he felt the anonymity of the students was not sufficiently protected and that the girls’ discussion of their use or non-use of birth control was inappropriate for some of the younger students.The First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections were not violated by the school district because the First Amendment protection for student expression described in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), does not compel a public school to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicts with its “legitimate pedagogical goals.” The school-financed newspaper at issue was also not considered to be a public forum under the totality of circumstances present in the case, and therefore, its editors were entitled to a lower level of First Amendment protection than is applicable to independent student newspapers or those newspapers that have, by policy and practice, opened their pages to student opinion

Tinker vs. Des moines

Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John’s sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.

In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired–that is, until after New Year’s Day.

This complaint was filed in the United States District Court by petitioners, through their fathers, under § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. It prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent school officials and the respondent members of the board of directors of the school district from disciplining the petitioners, and it sought nominal damages. After an evidentiary hearing the District Court dismissed the complaint. It upheld [505] the constitutionality of the school authorities’ action on the ground that it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance of school discipline. 258 F.Supp. 971 (1966). The court referred to but expressly declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s holding in a similar case that the wearing of symbols like the armbands cannot be prohibited unless it “materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (1966). [note 1]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered the case en banc. The court was equally divided, and the District Court’s decision was accordingly affirmed, without opinion.

Bruce Feldmans blog

http://sports.e .spn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=feldman_bruce

Today Bruce Feldman talked about where he thinks the top teams should be rated. This week #1 Florida played against #4 LSU this was Tim Tebows first game back sense the head injury he said he was impressed but he still has Alabama on top of the rankings who played a tough Ole Miss team winning 22-3 he was dissapointed in Ole Misses offence saying “it looked like the confidence had been beaten out of them, this is one of the worst offencive performances by Jevan Snead hes seen in a while.