Freedom of Speech?

An essay about so-called freedom of speech in the U.S. and how it has been restricted... written when I was sixteen, going on seventeen.

Freedom. It is the very foundation of the United States of America. People around the world dream of having the freedom that U.S. citizens take for granted every day. However, are we truly as free as we think? Most people probably learned about their First Amendment rights from an early age, but how many were informed that there are limitations to it? Said limitations, though sometimes selectively enforced, exist to restrict freedom for reasons that are, debatably, unneeded. The First Amendment, and thereby freedom of speech, should have fewer restrictions when it comes to schools, in public, and to American service members because it is one of the most valued rights possessed by U.S. citizens.

        While there are reasons for fewer restrictions, some are opposed to it. Some would say that the restrictions exist for valid, important reasons; however, once really analyzed, these specious reasons are unnecessary and controlling. There are laws put in place to restrict speech that can be offensive. That is not bad, right? Now, just think about how often you say something that could possibly be taken offensively, even if not intended that way. The possibilities are endless! For example, in the case Fordyce v. Frohnmayer, two people claimed that an art exhibition offended them religiously and tried to sue the creator. While they lost the case, the Supreme Court said that they might have had a case if they had to pass it every day. Basically, under that ruling, if someone sees or hears something that offends them every day -take, for instance, swear words- they can sue a person simply for using those words in conversation, whether he or she was even talking to that person or not. In addition, people could say the limitations are for the safety of the country. For the safety of the government, “… the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld statues which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government” (“Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts”). This may seem like a good thing, but think about the American Revolution. Without conversations occurring about overthrowing British control in the colonies, the United States would not even exist right now.

        Now that the arguments against have been addressed, onto the reasons for less limitation on the First Amendment. First, students’ right to free speech in schools is vastly undermined by their educators and other school authorities. Not only are students unable to exercise their rights of free speech, but so are people who come to speak. In 1943, the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case came to the Supreme Court over freedom of expression and speech. A school in West Virginia had a policy that forced students to pledge their allegiance to the American flag, but a group of students refused to do so because their religious beliefs were that they should not commit any allegiance to anyone but God. The Court ruled in favor of the students because the policy at their school went against their rights as citizens. There was another court case, Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia, in 1995, which addressed the rights of students. The University of Virginia was refusing student fees (which are usually collected as part of each student’s tuition and then distributed to student groups and organizations) to certain groups because of their views. It was ruled that schools could not discriminate against groups for simply voicing ideologies, and have to be neutral when giving the funding from student fees. Finally, one more court case shows that speakers in schools have limited rights of free speech. In Brooks v. Auburn University in 1969, it was ruled that students have the right to hear a speaker’s presentation despite having been convicted of a felony or being known for supporting a violent revolution after Auburn University tried to stop a speech because of the person’s reputation.

        Next, speech should be less restricted in the public forum. Public forums are public places. Traditional public forums are like parks, street corners, etc. There is a law that says that speech can be limited in public forums if the government deems that “… its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest…” (Cohen). In Bowman v. White, the Court ruled that in parts of a university in Arkansas that were designated “unlimited public forums”, people who speak cannot talk about controversial topics and what is said must serve the government in some way. This is another example of speech being limited in some public places. Also, there is a restriction for things broadcast on televisions, on the radio, etc.  about what can be expressed. This policy is called the “fairness doctrine”. Part of the government, “… the Federal Communication Commission’s ‘fairness doctrine’ [requires] broadcast media licensees to provide coverage of controversial issues of interest to the community…” (Cohen). So, something that affects the community cannot be discussed on-air unless those speaking have acquired special permits and licenses, taking away the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.

        Third, and finally, freedom of speech rights are restricted on employees of the government, including people fighting for our country. A court case, Pickering v. Board of Education, illustrates restrictions on people employed by the State. A teacher, Pickering, had written a letter to a local newspaper that expressed disapproval of the administration of the school at which he taught. The Court ruled that he did not have the right to write the letter and criticize the administration because he was a government employee. The government also employs members of the Army, Military, etc. Therefore, the government claims it has the right to enact the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a controversial rule that says homosexual service members are subject to discharge should their sexuality become known. In this policy, it states that a man or woman can be discharged if “the member has said that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or made some other statement that indicates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” (“SolomonResponse.org”). This statement clearly shows that anyone serving in armed forces may not verbalize their sexual orientation or any plans, hypothetical or not, to involve themselves with someone of the same gender to their comrades or commanders. Commanders are also barred from articulating a question about anyone’s sexual orientation. Speech is far from free when it comes to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

        Therefore, in education establishments, in public places, and for people hired by the U.S. government, limitations on freedom of speech and expression should be lightened due to the importance of this right. Schools often attempt to undermine the right to free speech of their students. In places considered to be public forums, or on television, the radio, etc., people’s rights are only partial when it comes to controversial and/or offensive topics. Also, service members and government workers are not entitled to express their minds in certain matters. These restrictions should be lifted or lightened to maintain the actual freedom that is due to the American people, without having to worry about “Big Brother” looking over their shoulders. How would you feel if you were randomly thrown in jail for one mistaken word heard by your government?

 

 

Bibliography

Cohen, Henry. “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment.” Congressional Research Service. N.p., 16 Oct 2009. Web. 6 Dec 2011. www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.

“Freedom of Expression: The First Amendment.” Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec 2011. .

Roland, Dave. “Campus Speakers.” First Amendment Center. N.p., 13 Sep 2002. Web. 6 Dec 2011. www.firstamendmentcenter.org/campus-speakers.

“Student Rights/Free Speech.” Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec 2011. .

“The U.S. Military’s Discriminatory Policy: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” SolomonResponse.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2011. www.lawgeorgetown.edu/solomon/background.html.