“I feel like they aren’t allowing me to have my freedom of expression,” Spies told the Herald. ”I think the administration is wrong in this situation, and I don’t want this to happen to other people.”
This bug the hell out of me. “Freedom” does not mean the freedom to MAKE OTHER PEOPLE DO WHAT YOU WANT. There were a crap load of pictures of me that did not make it into the yearbook and other’s that did because the editors felt that they did or did not make the yearbook the way they wanted it to look.
The following is the part of the story that makes me roll my eyes.
“Prior to today’s meeting, the Spies family told local media they planned to meet with a civil lawyer in Denver to review their daughter’s case.”
**
What’s up with the parents? There are times you ought to go to court, but this isn’t one of them.
sounds a lot like she wants ‘controversy’, that the editors offered a reasonable alternative that she decided not to take and go public with it instead…
$1 says she is a ‘model’ or ‘model/actress’
It’s been a while since I was in a year book…when did they start allowing students to provide the pictures? All of the pics for our year book where of the “Next please” variety, where everyone was in front of the same background.
Why would a school take a chance on something like that in today’s day and age and this is a perfect example of why it makes no sense to do anything other than what they did when I was in HS.
Typically the yearbook staff publishes a document with the requirements listed for yearbook photos. If the picture meets the requirements, it should be published. If not, it should be rejected. They should not be exercising “editorial license” on photos that meet the predefined criteria.
Parents buy out 1/2 or whole page of the year book for a crazy sum of money. Fill it with pictures of the spoiled child and some sappy words, typically something about how they can’t believe how fast their baby has grown up into a wonderful person. Even if that child is the biggest douche or slut in the school.
"They should not be exercising “editorial license” on photos that meet the predefined criteria. "
Gee, and here I thought that was exactly what year book editors were supposed to do. That is why we call them “editors” right?
Their editorial powers were exercised when they established the criteria for the yearbook photo. The entire rest of the yearbook is a blank slate for them to do their editorial and creative thing.
Her parents should be shot for (a) allowing her to get those pics and (b) even considering a lawsuit.
I would love to represent that school district.
Here’s an interesting comment from another article:
An attorney consulted by the Durango Herald says that even if the school did have a policy in place around the tolerable sexiness level of yearbook photos, Spies would still have a pretty good case; according to Colorado law, “no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint.” The only way the school would have a right to censor her photo would be if they could establish that her over-the-shoulder pout violated obscenity laws.