Can a school control an independent student newspaper A friend of me has founded a student newspaper in Germany that has an acronym of the schools name in its title. Like HBS instead of Harvard Business School. Internationally there are dozens of schools that have the same name. The newspaper is not sponsored by the school. Now the school wants to control what articles are being published by adding a staff member that can reject articles without a legitimate reason as defined in the German Pressekodex, a set of guidelines for good journalism. Can the school force the newspaper to align with their proposals?
Students too have freedom of information and expression. The school has no right to interfere with the student's activities outside of school. But is this activity outside of school? If the newspaper is created as part of a student council or a school-supported project group, supervision by a teacher might be appropriate. If the newspaper wants to distribute copies on school grounds, it will need the school's consent. If the name of the newspaper suggests an affiliation with the school, this could affect the reputation of the school which could lead to legal problems down the line (e.g. claims of defamation). Private schools are likely allowed to impose more restrictive rules. While there are legitimate reasons why the school would have to be (or wants to be) involved, it is ultimately not possible for a headmaster to restrict the student's freedoms. There is no legal basis for installing a censor. But a newspaper by students is not necessarily a “student newspaper”. Of course, any newspaper will have to comply with applicable press laws. Ultimately, the exact rules depend on press law and education law in that particular state. Bavaria provides a good online summary of the rules in that state, and Wikipedia summarizes the situation across a few states. Note that some press laws might require the senior editor to have a certain age if there isn't a special privilege for student newspapers.
No it is not illegal A school can ban or block online content from its own computers or connections as its administrators or teachers think proper, and does not need any law that authorizes or requires them to do so. The US Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires schools and libraries which receive discounts for Internet access or internal connections through the E-rate program to adopt an &quot;Internet safety policy&quot; This must include measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors. The policy also &quot;must include monitoring the online activities of minors&quot; and must address several other issues, including &quot;access by minors to inappropriate matter&quot;. It does not however, require tracking of usage by specific individuals. But the school may, if it chooses, adopt a policy broader than the requirements of CIPA, which are a minimum standard. The school may block content thought to distract from school work, for example, or that the relevant school authorities think unhelpful or contrary to its goals. This is in no way required by CIPA (unless it is part of addressing the issues CIPA demands be addressed), but is also in no way prohibited, it is the school's choice. Institutions that adopt a CIPA Internet safety policy must &quot;provide reasonable notice and hold at least one public hearing or meeting to address the proposal.&quot; But there is no legal requirement for the school to accurately describe which of its policy items are in fact required by CIPA. The only penalty for failing to comply with these CIPA requirement is loss of the E-rate discounts. A school may choose not to comply and forgo the discounts. Knowingly providing obscene content to minors might well be in violation of other laws, however. In short, the school can block whatever it sees fit, for whatever reasons school authorities think proper, unless some other law or constitutional right prevents this. I do not know of any such law or right, although I am researching the matter further. There is not generally a constitutional right to unfiltered internet access in school, or indeed to any access in school at all.
First, the press release is copyrighted from its inception and may have been work for hire (a close call since you wrote them for an LLC and the LLC had a deal with them). There is a copyright in someone, although the absence of a copyright notice limits the remedies available for infringement. Second, a link is not a copyright violation. Third, copyright protects an exact manifestation of an idea or description of a fact, not the idea or fact itself. Fourth, there are two different doctrines that could protect an exact copy of a press release. One of two doctrines, which applies if the press release has been released to the public, is an implied license. Press releases are meant for the general public and reprinting them when that is their intended purpose is an implied grant of permission. In the same way, if you have an unfenced front yard to a concrete path leading to your front door, anyone who wishes to meet with you has an implied license to walk up to your door and knock. Whether this implied license can be revoked or not is a harder question. The other of the two doctrines, which is not limited to press releases that have been released, is "fair use". In this situation, when the work was short, has been released to others, has limited literary value, transmits unprotected facts relevant to you, relates facts that may also be a matter of public record (the sale anyway), and you aren't trying to profit from the text of the press releases themselves just from the facts that they convey, the case for fair use is pretty decent even though this is a business use. Ultimately, however, to be squeaky clean and avoid litigation, you can link rather than regurgitate the press releases, and can write your own statements about the facts in them from scratch. This information is not privileged or trademarked. If you didn't sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or if they were released to the public, they aren't subject to trade secret protection either. If they were only released to the customer whose sale was involved and there is an NDA they could conceivably be trade secrets but even then the case would be very weak since the information doesn't create value by virtue of being kept secret.
You can, and many authors and other creators of fiction do, use the names of real newspapers, real brands and products, and real people without obtaining permission from anyone. As long as those names are not being used to market or identify goods or services, the use cannot be trademark infringement. There idea that you cannot &quot;defame the brans&quot; is in fact much narrower than many people think, and than it used to be. Particularly in the united-states free speech rights often supersede protections against so-called trademark &quot;defamation&quot;. In the US all of the examples in the answer by Jack Edwards would be clearly legal, an they probably would be in many other countries as well, if they appeared in a work that was clearly fictional. If a work mof fiction uses the name of a real person, and other identifying details that make it clear just which real person is being mentioned, and if statements that seem to be statements of fact, not opinion are made about that person, and if those statements are false and negative, and if a hypothetical reasonable person would believe that those statements are about the real person, not a fictional person, thereby harming that person's reputation, then if all that is true, the person might have a valid claim of defamation.
We don't have a lot of details, but if you're in the United States, the answer is probably yes. There are rarely any meaningful rules of evidence in student misconduct cases, so pretty much anything can come in. There may be some small difference in the answer depending n whether you're dealing with a public university or private, but in either case, I can't think of any reason why they would not be able to introduce the evidence if they had it. If there's a question about its authenticity, I imagine that would just be up to the misconduct board to decide. If Person X says "Person Y sent this to me," and Person X seems credible, that's probably going to be enough.
Jurisdiction: england-and-wales Section 2(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provides: It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. If a newspaper prints that a person has been accused of a crime and that person has in fact been accused of a crime, then the statement is truthful and there is no defamation. It would be different if the newspaper printed that the person had committed the crime (which implies they have been found guilty). If you pay close attention to such news articles you will see that they are usually very careful to use words such as &quot;alleged&quot;, &quot;accused&quot;, &quot;is on trial for&quot; etc. See the case of Christoper Jefferies for an example of a person who was accused of a murder, but subsequently found innocent, and who successfully sued various newspapers for defamation. In that case the articles had gone beyond mere statements of fact: He cited several examples of headlines and stories that had been published, including a headline in The Sun describing Jefferies – a former schoolmaster at Clifton College – as weird, posh, lewd and creepy; a story from the Daily Express quoting unnamed former pupils referring to him as &quot;... a sort of Nutty Professor&quot; who made them feel &quot;creeped out&quot; by his &quot;strange&quot; behaviour; and an article from the Daily Telegraph, which reported Jefferies &quot;has been described by pupils at Clifton College ... as a fan of dark and violent avant-garde films&quot;. Jefferies launched legal action against six newspapers on 21 April – The Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Record – seeking damages for libel. It was held that the media were quick to jump to conclusions regarding Jefferies's arrest. Being a retired English teacher who lived alone, whose physical appearance and &quot;eccentrically unkempt white hair,&quot; made him stand out, led people to believe that he looked the type. Stephen Moss wrote in The Guardian: &quot;The unspoken assumption was that no one could look that odd and be innocent.&quot;
First of all, even if it is not allowed to test them, you can also refuse to service someone untested - and that is not illegal discrimination, as &quot;untested for COVID 19&quot; is not a protected class. Public Schools however are not companies in the normal way, and the CDC can only advise in the rulemaking of local legislators and executives. And in the current health crisis, the school board and health authorities can order things for the protection of others and this can be enough justification to exclude individuals or several people from groups. After all, being teste or not is clearly not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, and neither is easily regarded as a form of first amendment speech - unlike a black armband (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community). Being untested is much more akin to being a person on a ship and then attempting to disembark in a quarantine zone - which was decided in Compagnie Francaise &amp; Lousiana Board of Health (there are two of those btw). The majority opinion in the SCOTUS case (1902) writes (emphasis mine): 24 True it is that, in some of the cases relied on in the argument, it was held that a state law absolutely prohibiting the introduction, under all circumstances, of objects actually affected with [a contagious] disease, was valid because such objects were not legitimate commerce. But this implies no limitation on the power to regulate by health laws the subjects of legitimate commerce. 34 [A]ssuming that all the treaties relied on are applicable, we think it clearly results from their context that they were not intended to, and did not, deprive the government of the United States of those powers necessarily inhering in it and essential to the health and safety of its people. Using a similar vein as in Compagnie Francaise, the public health interest might be enough for even a public school to only allow presence in the building with a test and otherwise demand online or remote learning (which isn't always an option) or even just suspend people that are not tested until such a time their presence is deemed safe. A private school is vastly more free in rulemaking, and as even a public school can muster strict scrutiny regarding presence teaching, a private school surely will get away with it. But nothing can force a private school to suspend teaching, switching to online classes or demand to test, unless they like to or their accreditation hinges on it - and here religious schools come in: There are religious groups that to an extent of not allowing medical procedures on their members, including COVID-testing. Those schools could ban people from attending that are tested. Endnote Public Health Interest is a hammer that can be rather heavy. It can't be used to discriminate against HIV, as that doesn't spread from touch and sneeze, but it can be used to ban people from buildings that have Communicable Diseases. While nobody classed COVID 19 as such yet, having such an illness [Plague, Cholera, Botulism, and others] allows the government to isolate you under strict scrutiny or even has been used to quarantine whole areas in the past (see the Compagnie Francaise case). And as you see in the current pandemic, legislative bodies globally do dish out rules for schools and public places in short order, some of which include testing strategies, and ways to overwrite consent via a state order. Some are struck down: some of them on procedural grounds (e.g. wrong body), others on grounds of equality (e.g. religious bias).
If the Kenya legislature passes such a law, they can impose such a requirement on Kenyans who want to create such social media groups. Note that this is a license from the Kenyan government, not a copyright or trademark license. In effect, it is a tax on running a social media group, along with various regulations. I have no idea if this bill is at all likely to pass. If it does pass, it might be hard to enforce, as it would probably require cooperation from Facebook and other social media platforms, and the companies which run those platforms are not located in Kenya, and might not cooperate.