Within the United States Constitution, there are 27 amendments that defend the

natural born rights of the people. Among these 27 rights is the First Amendment, which

states, “​Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a

redress of grievances.” As a journalist, freedom of speech is not as simple as it reads.

Although opinion driven conversations are what keeps the world flourishing and

growing, freedom of speech requires limitations in the world of journalism when it comes

to stating the cold, hard facts.

From ​The New York Times ​to the ​The Wall Street Journal, ​journalists have a duty

to the general public to be a source of the truth. Unlike a columnist, a journalist’s

opinion has no place in an article that is strictly relied on for the prominent facts. Yet, it

has been a constant form of discussion on whether the opinion of a journalist is only

restricted in the words of the article or whether it is also restricted in what information or

facts should even be included and exposed to the public. This dilemma is displayed in

a journalist’s moral ethics versus the laws they are required to follow. In other words,

what a journalist should not do versus what they cannot do. An ethical dilemma has

occurred when there are two or more courses of action that are ethically justifiable.

What can one do when their job is on the line alongside the reputation or personal life of

another? For example, in the court case Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier, interviews of

pregnant teenage students (minors) and another student who released information on
the divorce of their parents were planned on being included in the school sponsored

paper, ​The Spectrum. ​The Hazelwood school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, feared that

The Spectrum ​had violated the privacy of the students spoken about in their stories and

that the identities were not protected well enough. Cathy Kuhlmeier, student head of the

paper, filed a case against the Hazelwood School District saying her first amendment

rights had been violated. Yet, had Cathy Kuhlmeier first amendment rights been

violated if she was under the authority of a school sponsored paper?

The short answer to the above question is, no, Cathy Kuhlmeier first amendment

rights had not been violated, as the Supreme Court of Justice stated, as well. The

article was indeed relevant, timely, certainly a novelty, prominent, and included the

approval of the interviewees to be published. Yet, the article did NOT include the

consult of the school principal, the parents of the interviewees, or the fathers of the

pregnant students. Furthermore, the Cathy Kuhlmeier filed court case was flawed

knowing she was unaware that her alongside the interviewees being minors apart a

school sponsored news source, had little say in what actually was published in ​The

Spectrum​.

The Hazelwood versus Kuhlmeier court case is a prime example of the

requirement of limitations on freedom of speech in modern day journalism because

although a story can be riveting and possibly a novelty, there are many questions that

must be taken into consideration: Is this story biased? Does this article respect the
privacy of those involved? Is possible harm and backlash minimized as much as

possible? Freedom of speech and the entirety of the First Amendment is crucial in many

aspects of what keeps the world functioning. Yet, when those interested turn to

journalism as a source of knowledge, they are looking for unbiased facts, also known as

the truth, not the opinions that most likely have already formed.