Room 502, a stuffy classroom in the south side of Mercer Island High School, is packed with students working to put together the next issue of The Islander. A central table is stacked high with piles of newspapers, as are shelves lining the walls; most are from last October.

Katherine Defliese, a senior at MIHS and co-editor of The Islander, points to a corner shelf in the back of the room barely able to hold up yet more stacks of newspapers. “If you want a copy (of our October issue), there are plenty of them,” Defliese says.

The October edition of The Islander was never distributed and an editorial slated for the November issue was pulled, the latter featuring a “censorship” cover photo of students with stickers over their mouths in Orwellian fashion.

Both Defliese and co-editor Sara Vandenbelt are still sore over their struggles with the MIHS administration and the resulting censorship.

“After the fact, it really has been on our shoulders,” said Vandenbelt, also a senior. “We haven’t really had support from anyone else, so it’s been our responsibility.”

Despite seeking legal counsel from the Student Press Law Center, Defliese and Vandenbelt did not take any action against the administration at MIHS. Regardless, the editors continue to question the steps taken by Superintendent Cyndy Simms and Principal John Harrison regarding the October issue.

“We weren’t ready to let it go,” said Vandenbelt of the subsequent press the incident received in the Reporter. “If we’re always going to be worried about those two parents that are going to be upset [about what we print], what kind of product can we put out?”

The October issue of the student newspaper was pulled by the superintendent because of a suggestive photo of four students seemingly naked (their private areas strategically covered by musical instruments). It was a photo that had appeared in the paper before and had caused some parents to complain.

Simms maintains that no policy change will take place as a result of October’s incident.

“What has been done and what will continue to be the practice is the (advisor) will review the paper, as she always has in the past, and will be sure that the articles and photos will be appropriate,” said Simms. “And that’s not a change from the past at all.”

English teacher Chris Twombley said Simms’ reaction to the reprint of the photo was based on the response to the original printing.

“I think that the superintendent took some heat from parents (the first time),” Twombley said. “When the reprint came out, she responded by wanting to squelch it.”

But class advisor Jamie Prescott said that the administrators wanted to review any future criticism of the administration in The Islander be cleared through Harrison before publishing. When asked about the October incident, Principal Harrison declined to comment and directed all inquiries to Simms.

“It’s just a gray area,” said Prescott of the supposed screening process of future issues of The Islander. “I think it will be on a case by case basis.”

Prescott added that she approved the pages of the October issue before the picture in question was placed on the front page. She said she regrets not checking the pages again before publication.

“Our biggest problem is just students trying to sneak in innuendos into articles,” Prescott said. “There was an article in Garfield High School’s newspaper where a kid is smoking weed in the cover photo. We don’t write anything that controversial. We write about whether students should get credit for off-campus activities.”

A recent bill in the Washington State Legislature has piqued the interest of both Defliese and Vandenbelt. Sponsored by Dave Upthegrove (D-Des Moines), the measure would ensure free speech for high school and college journalists and would allow students to be the sole authorities of editorial content, barring any interference from school officials. Likewise, schools and their administrators would not be civilly or criminally liable for the content published in student media unless they interfered with the content before distribution.

Students would also be eligible to sue administrators if censorship or prior review of content before printing occurs.

“If students are preparing the content, the responsibility should be on the students,” said Defliese of potential legal ramifications against student media.

Simms and some faculty disagree with making students legally responsible for published content.

“Schools historically, and still today, are responsible for serving in the role of a parent when students are at school… and that’s a role that would be lost under this bill,” said Simms. “In public schools where taxpayer dollars are used to support, in this case, printing the newspaper, there would no longer be that option for the control of the use of taxpayer dollars. I think that’s an important point to be considered in the legislature’s thinking on this.”

Twombley echoed much of Simms’ sentiments. “Kids have to be able to make mistakes and screw up in a safe place,” said Twombley. “(Newspaper production) is a class, the school’s responsible for the class, and the school is ultimately responsible for the content.”

History teacher Mike Radow said he wasn’t too familiar with the bill, but agreed that students shouldn’t be expected to make flawless decisions.

“I am a big advocate of free speech,” said Radow. “Should kids be sued? No, I don’t think so. …We should be aware of what goes in the paper, but under a tight deadline it seems difficult for the advisor to see every word before they go to print. If editors let something go, and it is inappropriate, it is a chance for learning.”

Tiffany Wan is a student in the University of Washington Department of Communication News Laboratory.