High school students are suing their school district asking for millions of dollars in damages claiming that they never gave their consent to having their comments, names and sexual histories in a story in the school newspaper about oral sex. The district clams the students did consent and only changed their minds after their parent objected. -db
The News Tribune
March 25, 2010
By Adam Lynn
TACOMA, Wash. — A trial began in Pierce County Superior Court this week that pits the First Amendment against the right to privacy, the Puyallup School District against four of its former students, and friends against friends.
At issue is a package of stories on oral sex that ran in the February 2008 edition of the Emerald Ridge High School student newspaper, The JagWire. The package addressed the prevalence of oral sex among school students and health concerns associated with it.
Four students quoted in the package contend they never gave permission for their names and sexual histories to be printed. They suffered damages as a result in the forms of ridicule, harassment and invasion of privacy, they say.
The district disagrees, saying the students did consent to their names and comments being printed and changed their stories only when their parents got upset with what was in the paper.
Attempts to settle out of court came up empty, and the parties now are in Judge Susan Serko’s courtroom, trying to persuade a jury to their way of thinking.
The stakes are high. The plaintiffs, who sued the school district in November 2008, notified the district they intend to seek between $16 million and $32 million in damages.
Mikaela Bates, Kevin Weeks, Madison Freedle and Whitney Higgins, all of whom since have graduated, contend their reputations were ruined as a result of the package and that they endured humiliation and harassment on and off campus after their comments were published.
Some of the girls were called “slut” and “whore” after the package of stories appeared, their attorney, Tacoma personal injury specialist Jack Connelly, said in his opening statement Tuesday.
“These kids got branded with a scarlet letter,” Connelly told jurors. “It got to the point that they didn’t want to go to school. It was incredibly humiliating, shameful, embarrassing.”
What’s more, district officials never should have let the plaintiffs’ names appear in the newspaper alongside their sexual histories and violated their own policies by allowing them to be published, Connelly said.
Newspaper adviser Kevin Smyth should have known better and had the authority to stop the quotes from being published, Connelly said.
He also accused district officials of lying to The News Tribune after the package generated controversy at the school and in the surrounding community.
School district officials told The News Tribune at the time that The JagWire had obtained consent from the students before printing their names and comments.
“The information that was provided by the school district to The News Tribune was not accurate,” Connelly said Tuesday. “It was wrong.”
He said the student journalists “used” the plaintiffs to add “pizzazz” to the package of stories, which went on to win a statewide award.
“The evidence is going to show that what was being done in this case was solely pandering to lurid curiosity,” he said.
District attorney Michael Patterson delivered his opening statement Wednesday and stood by the district’s assertions that student reporters obtained consent from the four plaintiffs before putting their names and sexual histories into the paper.
“They agreed to be quoted. They knew their names would be used,” Patterson told jurors. “Nobody is claiming they were falsely interpreted, that they didn’t make the statement that appeared in The JagWire.”
He said the evidence shows Bates called the JagWire staff before publication of the February 2008 edition to ask that her quote be changed slightly before being printed. That request was honored, he said.
Connelly’s contention that the district violated its policies in allowing the article to go to press is wrong, Patterson said.
At the time, student editors solely were in charge of what went into the paper and could print what they wanted as long as the content wasn’t libelous or otherwise “unprotected expression,” he said.
“The final decision-makers were the students,” Patterson said. “The issue is open forum. It deals with freedom of expression under our First Amendment, which is a civil right.”
That policy since has changed, giving school principals the right to review publications before they go to print and reject objectionable content.
The district’s attorney also accused Higgins of claiming she hadn’t given consent so she could sue. Patterson said Higgins’ “best friend” would testify Higgins “flat out told me she was going to lie and say that she never gave consent.”
The four plaintiffs are scheduled to take the stand during the trial, which is expected to last for more than two weeks.
Former JagWire reporter and Emerald Ridge High School graduate Dallas Welker, who conducted the interviews, also is scheduled to testify, as are Principal Brian Lowney, JagWire adviser Kevin Smyth, district Superintendent Tony Apostle, former state schools Superintendent Judith Billings and Michael Hiestand of the Student Press Law Center.
One Comment
I’m an editor for my high school newspaper, The Voice and we have had similar issues with students commenting for stories then turning around and then say they never commented. That is why we have all of our interview notes signed. Our school also practices Prior Restraint and Prior Review, which means they can edit/remove anything they want from any story in our issue. There are laws about this in certain states that keep administrations from editing stories. If there is a state law then they are unable to do so and if they do, they can be sued and held responsible. If the students didn\’t want to be interviewed they shouldn\’t have done it.
Comments are closed.