Justices Hear Debate on Student Press Freedom : High Court Also Considers Whether Military Contractors Are Liable to Suits From Servicemen

The Supreme Court heard lively debate Tuesday on two controversial questions: does the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press extend to student journalists and are military contractors immune from suits by servicemen injured or killed by defective products?

The press freedom case is significant because--despite scores of clashes over the years between student editors and high school and college administrators--the high court has never ruled on whether the institutions can legally censor material in sponsored newspapers.

The second case could have an enormous financial impact on the defense industry, as well as affecting suits filed in connection with the crash of the space shuttle Challenger last year. The Supreme Court has ruled that the military and its officers are immune from all suits arising from matters that are “incident to service.” But the justices have never decided whether that blanket of immunity should extend to makers of products used by the military.

Teen-Age Pregnancy Articles

The school press case arose in 1983 when a high school principal in the St. Louis suburb of Hazelwood, Mo., ordered that a series of articles on teen-age pregnancy be deleted from the school paper. The students sued and an appeals court ruled in their favor, concluding that the articles were neither libelous nor “disruptive.”

Tuesday, school attorney Robert P. Baine Jr. told the high court that administrators should have absolute authority over the content of the paper. It was paid for by the school and was “part of the curriculum” on which students are graded, making it appropriate for school rather than student control, he said.

Leslie D. Edwards, representing the students, said that the paper was set up as a voice for the students, pointing out that each issue carried a disclaimer saying that the articles did not represent official school positions.

“Once you have a vehicle for student expression, school control cannot be absolute,” Edwards argued. Asked by the justices whether students should be free to publish an article saying that teen-age sex or smoking marijuana is “fun,” she replied that they should.

“You are giving us the choice of saying either: you have no school newspaper, or you have one with articles that say ‘Smoking Pot is Great,’ ” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

In free speech issues involving students, the court ruled in 1969, in a case stemming from a Vietnam War era protest at a school, that students “do not leave their constitutional rights at the school house door.” However, in a 1986 ruling, the court ruled in another case that students do not have the same free speech rights as adults do. A ruling in this case (Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, 86-836) is expected by June.

The defense liability case stems from the death of a Marine who was killed when his Sikorsky helicopter went out of control and crashed off the Virginia coast. Last year, an appeals court in Richmond threw out a $750,000 court award for the family of the serviceman, David Boyle, on the grounds that Sikorsky should not be held liable for a helicopter design that was approved by the military.

The family’s lawyer, Louis Franecke of San Francisco, argued that courts should not create a shield to protect defense manufacturers from restitution for their mistakes. “This is a special defense for a special class of people, and we think it is especially wrong,” he said.

But Deputy Solicitor General Donald B. Ayer, representing the government, said that military contractors who are producing new and untried “sophisticated weapons systems” cannot be held to the same standard of liability as makers of other products.

Defense officials, Ayer said, must be able to tell contractors: “We want this product, we want it to these specifications, and we want it now.”

Lawyers say that a ruling in the case (Boyle vs. United Technologies, 86-492) could affect the Challenger lawsuits. Some relatives of the seven crew members killed have filed claims against the shuttle’s contractors, alleging negligence.

sh Other Court Actions

In other actions, the court:

--Agreed to decide whether a Michigan farmer who used “psychological coercion” to make a retarded man work for him can be charged with violating the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery and “involuntary servitude.” Lawyers have said that the case (U.S. vs. Kozminski, 86-2000) could foster suits against religious cults.

--Agreed to decide whether the controversial 1965 Miranda ruling should be extended to give some criminal suspects extra warning that they may obtain a lawyer before being questioned (Patterson vs. Illinois, 86-7059).

Suspects are told that they have a right to a lawyer when they are first questioned. But the Illinois murder suspect maintains that the warnings do not assure that a suspect’s waiver of that right is given “knowingly and intelligently.” The suspect, who had already been indicted, made incriminating statements in answer to police questions after he had been read his Miranda rights.