Trust in the media remains low , and the prospects are not bright, considering how some student journalists view free speech.

University of Arizona student journalists Olivia Krupp and Noor Haghighi recently published an opinion piece where they said the “line between free speech and hate speech on school campuses needs to be reviewed.” They also argued that the “well being” of students should come ahead of a pro-life group’s First Amendment rights.

This came after a pro-life group called the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform came to campus for two days with its displays. The group uses graphic imagery and videos of what an abortion actually looks like and makes comparisons between the killing of pre-born babies and other human rights atrocities, such as the Holocaust and the lynching of African Americans.

“Even as students walked away, the large photo displays of swastikas, lynchings and other genocides remained clear, unharmonious with the rows of palm trees lining the UA campus,” Krupp, the Daily Wildcat’s opinion editor, wrote with Haghighi. “It was then I found myself wondering how our administration defines an event as larger than normal and how hate symbols must have looked displayed at a Campus Use Committee meeting.”

The group does not use swastikas or other symbols of hate in an approving way; its point is to show that there are similarities between the human rights violations of the 20th century and abortion today, as the pair later wrote.

“Various victims of past massacres were exploited on display by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, in what seemed to me to be a clear attempt to create some sort of disturbing shock value,” the journalists wrote in a moment of clarity. “The posters of lynching, the Holocaust and many more graphic images were placed with intent to make a distorted comparison of abortion to genocide.”

After quoting from a school official who explained how the group had followed all the paperwork and that the university had a legal obligation to allow them on campus, Krupp and her co-author continued to criticize the privileging of the First Amendment over feelings.

“Does the disturbing and hateful content shown on this campus become voided in the presence of paperwork and the pursuit to allow, to not deny?” the article asked. “It seems as if all answers point to yes.”

Krupp said the administration failed “to put student safety and education first.”

“We are a public university with an open campus where ‘free speech’ and First Amendment rights are granted,” the opinion piece continued. “However, when that free speech is exercised at the expense of another’s well being, it should not be acceptable, especially by those who make a promise to their student body.”

“School is meant to be a comfortable place — not a place where individuals are bullied and groups of people are antagonized,” the pair wrote. “If a conversation regarding regulations of hate speech on campus doesn't start now, then when? If not us, then who?” they concluded.

Free speech will usually offend someone, but journalists should be supportive of the First Amendment because it gives them their protections of freedom of the press as well. There is already a documented history of journalists being biased against pro-life views, and this opinion piece only adds to that concern.

Future journalists need to be reminded of the importance of respecting other views outside of their liberal bubble and of supporting free speech. Only then will trust and respect for the media return.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.