As a journalism student, I hear references to the First Amendment on a daily basis, and as a student journalist, I took for granted The Spectator’s ability to publish without censorship.

However, the First Amendment rights of me, the rest of The Spectator’s staff and countless other student journalists are under fire following a June Appellate Court decision.

In order to tell the complete story, one must first consider the history surrounding the case.

Seventeen years ago, the scale on which freedom of speech balanced K-12 education administrative authority was destroyed. The year was 1988, and the case was Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded unprotected speech to such a degree that a high school principal could censor student newspapers for being, “poorly written,” “biased,” “grammatically incorrect” or “inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order.”

However, the Hazelwood case decision intentionally left out the censorship of college and university student press. A footnote of the decision stated, “We need not decide whether the same degree of deference is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and university level.”

Fast forward to June 20, 2005, when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled such standards should apply to universities and colleges as well.

The case, Hosty v. Carter, began after The Innovator, student newspaper of Governors State (Ill.), published an article that attacked the integrity of a dean. After The Innovator refused to retract the story, university officials ordered the printer to stop producing issues of the paper, according to an Aug. 18 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

As a result of the subsequent lawsuit, student newspapers in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana now are required to prove their service as a public forum in order to enjoy First Amendment rights.

With the recent celebration of the first U.S. Constitution Day (which itself is ironic, considering the current state of constitutional rights in America), it seems important that we as a student press inform our peers of this outrageous infringement on basic human liberty.

Since when in our country is a burden of proof applied to First Amendment rights? To what degree must we prove we are, indeed, a “public forum?” Who decides which publications fit that description?

Leaving these questions unanswered can result in nothing but a dangerous chance for the loss of free expression.

It also is important to note that this ruling could have an effect on more than campus newspapers and printed press. It also, according to the Student Press Law Center, could be applied to all campus activities and speech, as well as university films and artwork. Therefore, unless a campus organization can prove it is fulfilling the role of a “public forum,” university administrators, theoretically, could ban it.

While one cannot assume our own administration at Eau Claire would try to censor student media, the principle of being forced to prove the press’ purpose was expressly denounced by the founding fathers in their wording of the Bill of Rights itself. Literally, our ability to speak freely now is in the hands of campus administration.

And the particularly alarming notion of college campuses having limited free speech undermines Eau Claire’s own mission of “fostering the intellectual, personal, social and cultural development of its students.”

As part of an institution that places the utmost importance on free expression of thoughts and ideas, we see numerous potential restrictions on our First Amendment rights through the use of the 24-year-old UW System speech code, as well as Eau Claire-imposed restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech.

That aside, student audiences at Eau Claire – and at all Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana campuses – deserve a free and self-imposed unbiased student press. To deny attendees of government-sponsored institutions their First Amendment rights is a frightening foreshadow of what has even now become acceptable censorship.

While Hazelwood has disenfranchised high school journalists for nearly 20 years, one can only hope Hosty will not do the same to college press.

I know that, at the least, I will not take for granted The Spectator’s ability to provide uncensored information.