One-Sided

Student journalists should be supported by their constitutional right to freedom of the press because it can be argued that since we live in America and have this right, what's the difference between adults having this right and students having this right? Students shouldn't be limited because everyone deserves to have a voice, and they may want to fix their community, especially school community by holding them accountable for what they know.

Some adults make it seem as though young people are not smart enough to know their rights, or assume what student journalists are writing is not important, or that their voice means nothing. Students experience what is going on good or bad, and they are living their lives and experiencing it, makes it just as justifiable for them to write about any topic. Adults want to keep a story held in, for example, if there was a fight and someone was jumped, and a student journalist writes about it and it is published, then it makes the school's reputation look bad, and exposes the school to the public and public opinion.

Some might argue that student journalists shouldn't be supported by their right to freedom of the press, and be censored because as the Hazelwood Supreme Court case of 1988, says there's a fear that "students would be hurt" if they would publish those articles. Protecting students is important because, not only doing it makes the school look bad, as an adult or teacher, it is their responsibility to protect them from things they did not consider when they started writing. They should learn that some articles shouldn't go out to the public because it could be seen as gossipy, and immature, no one wants to listen to an immature person. In the future, their work may not be taken seriously if they don't learn when to censor themselves and their own writing.