A bill that would defend the First Amendment right to free speech for student journalists in Washington state stalled in committee this year, but spurred an interesting discussion at Mercer Island High School.

Sen. Steve Litzow, who co-sponsored the New Voices of Washington bill (Senate Bill 6233) during the 2016 legislative session, visited the high school on April 21 to discuss its implications for young journalists.

The bill would prevent prior review and censorship in high school newspapers and broadcasts “even if the school financially supports the media or if it is produced as part of a class.”

Litzow, R-Mercer Island, who chairs the Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee, said he will bring the bill back next year. He said that freedom of speech is both a “core right” and a “huge issue,” culturally and constitutionally.

Litzow gave a brief introduction before turning the discussion over to the students and journalism adviser Chris Twombley for about a half hour of questioning. He was asked why he supported the bill — and answered that the idea was to clarify the boundaries for student journalists and make them consistent across the state’s 295 school districts — and who, of the presidential candidates, would support it.

“Probably all of them,” he said, leading to a dialogue about media and politics and the reach of the First Amendment past the walls of Mercer Island High School.

“From a journalism point of view, one of the big questions you ask yourself is, what is the role going forward? As a politician, I want to get my message out. I’ve got email, I’ve got Twitter, I’ve got social media, so what role does traditional media play? It’s changing rapidly,” Litzow said.

The Washington bill follows a wave of efforts nationwide to clarify students’ rights to free speech, but it faced some opposition from the Association of Washington Schools Principals. A representative testified that the school district, as “publisher” of student newspapers, should have some control over what is printed.

The necessity of SB 6233 stems from a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier. The court said that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored expression if the censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,” reversing the historic 1965 pro-student freedom of expression decision, Tinker v. Des Moines.

The “Tinker standard” held that school officials could not restrict a student’s expression of opinion unless it caused to a disturbance in the educational environment. It protects student speech unless it is libelous, invades a person’s privacy or creates a “clear and present danger” of a “material and substantial disruption” of school activities.

SB 6233 would protect advisers from retaliation for content and limits the extent to which schools can be held civilly or criminally liable for student media, unless they “interfered with or altered the content of the student expression.” It would put a $2,500 cap on the amount that can be claimed in damages from a high school newspaper.

“First, we wanted to protect the adult, as well as clarify who is liable for what, and put a cap on that type of thing,” Litzow said. “Politics is black and white, but policy is all gray … We’re trying to clarify those gray areas.”

Litzow was asked how a “disruption to learning” can be proved, and responded that, “you can’t legislate everything.”

Some of the concern in Washington stems from a 2008 incident in the Puyallup School District, which was sued for content in a student newspaper, the JagWire. It printed a series of articles about teen oral sex and quoted several students about their experiences. A lawsuit filed by the families of the students was ultimately unsuccessful.

Still, it brings up the worry that young journalists can’t be trusted to cover stories that may portay their school in a negative light, and still face the threat of censorship.

“We want to encourage all of them to exercise their rights and to hold power accountable, but sometimes, especially in this setting where not all of these young people are adults or even considered by adults in the district to be thoughtful and critical thinking, full-functioning individuals and intellectuals… They might be patronized by power,” Twombley said.

Litzow said these concerns are usually abated by professionalism. As a politician trying to get his message out, he prefers to work with journalists who are trustworthy, fair and who do their homework, he said.

“As journalists, your goal is to make sure that you’re getting to whatever you consider the truth is, and not being intimidated by power or your age,” Litzow said.

MIHS Principal Vicki Puckett, who sat in on the discussion, said that it’s important for the students, teachers and administrators to build trust and strong relationships to prevent situations where the student paper could get into trouble. She said she assumes good intent from her student journalists.

“If something goes south on us, then we’re going to deal with it and learn from it,” she said.