Opinion ID: 172208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Colorado State Law Claim

Text: Finally, Corder claims the district court erred when it determined that her claim under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 22-1-120 failed because section 22-1-120 applied only to publications. The statute states, in its entirety: (1) The general assembly declares that students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press, and no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint except for the types of expression described in subsection (3) of this section. This section shall not prevent the advisor from encouraging expression which is consistent with high standards of English and journalism. (2) If a publication written substantially by students is made generally available throughout a public school, it shall be a public forum for students of such school. (3) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize the publication or distribution in any media by students of the following: (a) Expression that is obscene; (b) Expression that is libelous, slanderous, or defamatory under state law; (c) Expression that is false as to any person who is not a public figure or involved in a matter of public concern; or (d) Expression that creates a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts, the violation of lawful school regulations, or the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school or that violates the rights of others to privacy or that threatens violence to property or persons. (4) The board of education of each school district shall adopt a written publications code, which shall be consistent with the terms of this section, and shall include reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner of conducting free expression within the school district's jurisdiction. The publications code shall be distributed, posted, or otherwise made available to all students and teachers at the beginning of each school year. (5) (a) Student editors of school-sponsored student publications shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertising content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the publications advisor of school-sponsored student publications within each school to supervise the production of such publications and to teach and encourage free and responsible expression and professional standards for English and journalism. (b) For the purposes of this section, publications advisor means a person whose duties include the supervision of school-sponsored student publications. (6) If participation in a school-sponsored publication is part of a school class or activity for which grades or school credits are given, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to interfere with the authority of the publications advisor for such school-sponsored publication to establish or limit writing assignments for the students working with the publication and to otherwise direct and control the learning experience that the publication is intended to provide. (7) No expression made by students in the exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of the press shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, and no school district or employee, or parent, or legal guardian, or official of such school district shall be held liable in any civil or criminal action for any expression made or published by students. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the promulgation or enforcement of lawful school regulations designed to control gangs. For the purposes of this section, the definition of gang shall be the definition found in section 19-1-103(52), C.R.S. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 22-1-120. The district court found that the statute's plain meaning prohibited only prior restraint of student expression that is contained within a publication. Colorado follows the general rule of statutory construction that when construing a statute, we must begin with the statute's plain language, and if the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, then we need not look beyond the plain language and we must apply the statute as written. Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo.2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In addition, Colorado law dictates that we afford the language of statutes their ordinary and common meaning and construe statutory provisions as a whole, giving effect to every word and term contained therein, whenever possible. Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Both parties argued in the district court and in their briefs to this court that section 22-1-120 is not ambiguous. [8] The district court so found and we agree that the statute is not ambiguous. We further agree with the district court's reading of the plain meaning of the statute. The actual prohibition from subsection 22-1-120(1) is that no expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint. Although the statute begins with a general statement that students in public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press it is clear from reading the entire statute that section 22-1-120 regulates only student expression that is contained within a written publication. There are numerous provisions of section 22-1-120 pertaining to written speech and journalism to further emphasize this point: § 22-1-120(1) (encouraging expression which is consistent with high standards of . . . journalism); § 22-1-120(2) (If a publication written substantially by students is made generally available throughout a public school, it shall be a public forum for students of such school.); § 22-1-120(4) (The board of education of each school district shall adopt a written publications code . . . .); § 22-1-120(5) (Student editors of school-sponsored student publications shall be responsible for determining the news, opinion, and advertising content of their publications subject to the limitations of this section.); and § 22-1-120(6) (If participation in a school-sponsored publication is part of a school class or activity . . . the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted to interfere with the authority of the publications advisor for such school-sponsored publication to establish or limit writing assignments for the students working with the publication.. . .). Further, even if the statute were ambiguous, there is no legislative history or Colorado case law which would alter our plain-meaning analysis. It appears, however, that section 22-1-120 was passed by the Colorado legislature in the wake of Hazelwood and the concern regarding its impact on student newspapers. See, e.g., Richard J. Peltz, Censorship Tsunami Spares College Media: To Protect Free Expression on Public Campuses, Lessons from the College Hazelwood Case, 68 Tenn. L.Rev. 481, 501, n. 161 (2001) (describing Colo.Rev.Stat. § 22-1-102 as an effort by Colorado to pass an anti- Hazelwood  law to protect student publications). This response to Hazelwood  is another indication that the Colorado legislature meant for this statute to be limited in applicability to written student publications. We affirm the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to the School District on Corder's state-law claim, as Corder's claim does not fall within Colo. Rev.Stat. § 22-1-120.