http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=tuelets27&date=20070327

it's truly vile.

It's like they were saying, "In the real world there are assholes, and we're going to make sure you undersand that, because WE are those assholes." Way to inspire young people. It would be disappointing to find out that the poster at #1 is correct (not disputing it, just waiting for another confirmation.)

Schraum's point about how too many working journalists don't defend the First Amendment is an important one. You'd think during an administration that regularly fosters the idea that reporting contrary facts is treasonous, more working journalists would take a stand.

And just to address one of Mr. Schraum's comments, SOME members of the professional press HAVE been taking a stand in favor of the First Ammendment; SB 5358, which passed with a 41-7 bi-partisan vote earlier this month would shield reporters from revealing confidential sources under threat of prosecution. A similar bill passed unanimously through the State House & some minor tweaking is expected to reconcile the two bills before it is passed on to Gov. Gregoire, who has indicated she will sign it.

I should point out, this legislation was conceived, formulated and presented by members of AFTRA, which represents, among others, journalists in the broadcast media, although it also had the support of the Newspaper Guild, as well as receiving a unanimous endorsement from the Washington State Labor Council.

Unfortunately, rank-and-file working journalists don't normally have much sway on editorial boards, but I do know, from discussions I've had with my members, that the issue of student journalist censorship is not one they take lightly, and for some of the same reasons to which Mr. Schraum alludes.

" It would be unfair, however, not to credit those many professional journalists who supported us all the way. The Seattle P-I, The News Tribune, USA Today, and the Spokesman-Review deserve a very special and heartfelt thanks. Their willingness to go to bat for students, and their refusal to accept the quick and easy “principal-as-publisher” logic gives me hope. "

Many have cried "censorship" in response to the amendment removing high schools from this bill. I'll re-ask a question I posed before on this blog that no one responded to, this time inserting a different faceless bureaucrat into the hypothetical. If it's censorship to control content in a government-financed publication, could Jay Manning, director of the Department of Ecology, censor information in the Ecology department newsletter? If so, is there some distinction between newsletters and newspapers? Does the medium matter?

You guys in favor of this bill should be arguing that you think extending these protections to high school student journalists is good policy, not that it's proscribed by the First Amendment, because it's a pretty shaky constitutional leg you're trying to stand on. Why make it about rights? Just say it's a good idea.