Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hosty v. Carter
Thesis: The final verdict in Hosty v. Carter places excessive power in the hands of
administrative officials on college campuses. The verdict undermines the efforts of collegiate
The student paper at Governor State University in Illinois, the Innovator, published
articles critical of a professor in the fall of 2000 (Niedbalski). According to Niedbalski, the
articles were poorly written, cited anonymous sources and were not an example of
exemplary collegiate journalism. But the content of the Innovator, which was supported by
student activity fees, was still entitled to First Amendment protections. The policy of the
University’s Student Communications Media Board entitled the Innovator’s student staff to
advance approval” (Hosty v. Carter, 325 F.3d 945). The faculty adviser often read stories
before their publication, but did so at the request of the student editors—and the adviser
The University’s Dean of Student Affairs and Services, Patricia Carter, objected to
the content of the issue in question and called Regional Publishing to halt publication of the
paper (Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). Carter told Regional Publishing’s president, Charles
Richards, that a school official must approve the Innovator’s content before it could be
printed, and told him to call her when he received future issues of the paper. Richards
passed along information from his conversations with Carter in a November 2000 letter to
Innovator editors, including the instructions not to publish any issues without the prior
approval of a college official. Richards stated that he didn’t believe the school was legally
McCluskey 2
able to enact such a policy, but advised that he was not a lawyer. Regional Publishing
officials confirmed that they would not publish additional issues of the Innovator, as they
In response, Innovator editors Margaret Hosty and Jeni Porche, as well as staff
reporter Steven P. Barba, filed a lawsuit against 17 defendants, most of whom were
ultimately dismissed (Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). Dean Carter claimed qualified
immunity, which “shields an official from suit when she makes a decision that, even if
she confronted” (Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). Carter claimed that the law did not clearly
state “that her request to review and approve the Innovator prior to printing might violate
the student editors’ rights under the First Amendment” (Hosty v. Carter, 325 F.3d 945).
However, for many years leading up to the case, courts have consistently upheld and
enforced the First Amendment protections of student media at public colleges and
universities. The censoring of student media has only been supported when the schools
were able to demonstrate that the speech in question is a disruption to the educational
process, or if the schools can prove that the speech is not legally protected.
The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling was used in an attempt to muddle the case
against Carter. But the Supreme Court’s strict First Amendment standards in that case
“sprang from its premise that the special circumstances of a secondary school… permit
school authorities to exercise greater control over expression by students” (Hosty v. Carter,
325 F.3d 945). In Hosty v. Carter, the court ruled that the Hazelwood rationale could not and
would not apply due to the “obvious differences in the missions of high schools and
McCluskey 3
colleges—as well as differing needs, ages and maturity levels of the respective students”
(Hopkins 283).
Carter also argues that she never actually restricted publication of the paper. She
claims that the editors of the Innovator were responsible for deciding not to send
additional issues to the publishing company (Hosty v. Carter, 325 F.3d 945). But documents
prove that Regional Publishing was not inclined to print future issues, as doing so meant
the company risked not getting paid. A federal appeals court wrote in 1973 that
financial support, or asserting any other form of censorial oversight based on the
institution’s power of the purse (Hosty v. Carter, 325 F.3d 945). Carter’s call to the
publisher and implication that the company would not be paid if it printed the Innovator
without prior approval from a college administrator was in direct violation of this policy.
Her actions also clearly violated the student editors’ First Amendment rights.
Carter would not be excused from the suit on the grounds of qualified immunity, nor
her claims that she didn’t actually restrict the Innovator’s publication. The 2003 ruling
from a three-judge panel “cited legal precedence in holing that administrators can censor
only when student media content is ‘legally unprotected or if they can demonstrate that
some significant… disruption of the campus will result from the publication’s content’”
(Hopkins 283). Carter could not prove that the media she censored met such requirements,
and the ruling in the case was celebrated as a “major victory” by the Student Press Law
Center (283).
McCluskey 4
But less than a year later, the case was reargued in front of the circuit court. Circuit
Judge Easterbrook wrote for the majority in the second ruling of the case. The Hazelwood
decision included a footnote: “We need not now decide whether the same degree of
college and university level” (Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). According to Easterbrook, the
plaintiffs’ argument and the district court’s decision relied too heavily on the Hazelwood
footnote. He states that the footnote was interpreted as stating that high school papers
could be subject to review, while college papers could not, and that the interpretation was
incorrect. Easterbrook states that “whether some review is possible depends on the answer
to the public-forum question, which does not (automatically) vary with speakers’ age”
(Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). He adds that “only when courts need to access the
activities may be outside any public forum” (Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731). He reminds the
court that “academic freedom includes the authority of the university to manage an
academic community and evaluate teaching and scholarship free from interference by
other units of government, including the courts.” This is where Easterbrook’s argument
begins to lose its steam. He uses case law to support his statements, which should present a
strong argument. But his statements then appear to contradict each other. Easterbrook
establishes that “[the majority] does not think it possible on this record to determine what
kind of forum the University established or Dean Carter’s justifications” (Hosty v. Carter,
412 F.3d 731). It seems that, had the majority made an attempt to determine such
McCluskey 5
qualifiers, it would have been possible to conclude that the Innovator was a public forum;
Easterbrook himself states “these facts would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude
that the Innovator operated in a public forum and was thus beyond the control of the
University’s administration.”
But the majority makes no visible attempt to determine such qualifiers. As a result,
Easterbrook continues on to say “the Innovator did not participate in a traditional public
forum. Freedom of speech does not apply that someone else must pay” (Hosty v. Carter, 412
F.3d 731). The verdict in this case prompts the Student Press Law Center to urge college
The court also holds that “when a school regulates speech for which it also pays…
the appropriate question is whether the ‘actions are reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns.’” But in Hosty v. Carter, the University does not pay for the speech
that Carter attempted to regulate. The argument is therefore irrelevant. The second ruling
in this case appears to be a grand attempt to side with the University. Easterbrook implies
that the district court’s initial ruling relies too heavily on the footnote in the Hazelwood
case, but it appears that, in a similar manner, the second ruling relies too heavily on the
public forum question. I’m unsure as to why the court would want to stifle student media
on college campuses, but because case law allows that this verdict may be cited in future
Works Cited
Hopkins, W. Wat. Communication and the Law. Blacksburg, VA: Vision Press, 2009. Print.
Hosty v. Carter. 325 F.3d 945. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 2003. Google
Scholar. <http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=16470782979640004436&q=hosty+v+carter&hl=
en&as_sdt=20000000002>. 01 May 2010.
Hosty v. Carter. 412 F.3d 731. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 2005.
Google Scholar. <http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=10225258152708377913&q=hosty+v+carter&hl=
en&as_sdt=20000000002>. 01 May 2010.
Niedbalski, James. Class Lecture. Media Law and Ethics. Massachusetts College of Liberal
Arts, North Adams, MA. 15 April 2010.