Freedom Of Speech In Schools

986 Words2 Pages

Freedom of Speech is defined as the right for people to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Multiple people believe that freedom of speech has to do with what a person says verbally. This is a false assumption seeing that there is a speech in symbols such as a picture and a “tattoo” (Kendrick). Anyone can see a symbol and immediately believe that it is offensive to their religion, or what they believe, after all, “all speech is symbolic” (Kendrick). Many people are punished for speaking their minds due to the unsafety that people have when speaking freely, considering that they attack a person. There are multiple instances in which freedom of speech might be taken away like when someone wears their belief or exposes themselves …show more content…

Soon after, the high school argued that they have the right to censor speech that would disrupt the educational experience of others (Shouting Fire). In one point of view, the student should have been suspended because he knew that the private event that was supporting gay and lesbian awareness was taking place. His action is frowned upon because the event was private to the LGBTQ+ community. He cannot say that the gays and lesbians are immoral or disordered (Shiffrin). His being there was unnecessary and therefore is not violating his freedom of speech. However, in another point of view, if the event was held for the public and not just the LGBTQ+ community, his first amendment rights had been violated because since his high school was a public school, he could be at the event. Chase had his own beliefs about homosexuality due to him following God and practicing his own beliefs. Therefore, he also has freedom of religion which the government cannot intervene (Campbell). Some may consider what Chase said as hate speech which is not free speech but he made this statement due to his religion. He never attacked the LGBTQ+ community. “Individuals should not be compelled to violate their religious beliefs in the absence of a powerful showing” (Shiffrin). It was his opinion which came from his religious …show more content…

One has to know that in the first amendment, there is no tolerance for hate speech or any kind of speech that attacks a person or group based on race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In all of this chaos, many are questioning the deliberative democracy we follow. The fluctuating outcomes each speech case has goes to show that the amendment has to be refined and more specific. The idea of the rights is not absolute. The government marks a line indicating when one takes the first amendment too freely. When an occurrence like so happens, there is chaos and unhappy citizens. Freedom of speech has a boundary that limits people before potentially hurting another person which shows just how weak the deliberative democracy is. The government stops people from opening citizens eyes to a new perspective, hence blocking freedom of speech. An example would be Churchill and his notion about 9/11 and whether or not it was actually a mistake. The government hides things from its people to prevent chaos like shouting “fire” in a movie theater would. They stop the thoughts of potential conspiracies and keep restraining

Open Document