Arkansas Student Publications Act: Implementation and Effects

Plopper, Bruce L.; Downs, William D.

doi:10.1177/107769589805300109

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason for the gap between the conception of a law and its implementation might be traced to at least three causes noted by Plopper and Downs (1998). They found in their study in Arkansas that some advisors were unaware of the state law.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dickson and Paxton (1997) found that advisors in states with press laws were not as likely to respond that the advisor is ultimately responsible for the content of the newspaper and not as likely to state that the advisor should correct factual inaccuracies in student copy. The only other reported study that specifically addressed issues concerning state press freedom laws was a one-state study by Plopper and Downs (1998). They found that "on occasion, the letter of the law clearly had been violated" in Arkansas (p. 8 2 ) following implementation of the state's student press law, and they found "a good deal of advisor ignorance related to content and implementation" of the law (p. 83).…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State Free Expression Laws and Scholastic Press Censorship

Paxton

Dickson

2000

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

State Free Expression Laws and Scholastic Press Censorship

Paxton

Dickson

2000

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Impact of Fuzzy Logic on Student Press Law

McCool¹,

Plopper²

2001

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Court supports public education as "a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values" (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, at 493 (1954)), and believes public schools should inculcate in children the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" (Ambach v. Norwich, 441 U.S. 68, at 76-77 (1979)), the Court never has addressed in precise terms the restrictions that public school systems may place upon their students' fundamental right of free expression. In fact, beginning with Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), the Court during a 19-year period fashioned a set of ill-defined guidelines by which student expression may be governed.To determine whether these guidelines have affected the meaning of free expression for non-university, public school students, a set of narrowly defined student publication decisions is analyzed using fuzzy logic, a relatively new science. The study reviews lower court decisions and appellate court decisions from the last four decades, and draws conclusions concerning the relationships between court language and case outcome.

show abstract

Arkansas Student Publications Act: Implementation and Effects

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

State Free Expression Laws and Scholastic Press Censorship

State Free Expression Laws and Scholastic Press Censorship

The Impact of Fuzzy Logic on Student Press Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About