Feeley 1

Quinn Feeley

Professor Huizar

UWRT 1102

Freedom of Speech

The question of what falls into the category of free speech and what speech isnt

protected has been a controversial issue for years and remains so today. The issue is particularly

topical given President Trumps so-called war against the media and his vow to change the

countrys libel laws (1) and the emergence of social media as a the preferred form of expression.

A new generation of Americans are being faced with the complexities and boundaries of free

speech rights in an age of social media, where politicians and celebrities routinely spout

outrageous statements in 140-character blasts and the demands of political correctness conflict

with the free expression of ideas. However, Freedom of Speech may and should be limited in

some instances when it clearly poses a threat to the safety of others, making matters crucial.

While there are debates about whether social-media sites such as Facebook and Twitter

have a negative role in furthering free speech through their roles as news curators (2), there

seems to be little argument that millennials are just as devoted in their support of First

Amendment freedoms as their parents. Chokshi states that support for the First Amendment

among high schoolers is stronger today than it has been in the past 12 years. (3)

The sentiment backing this free-speech support may stem from feelings that individuals

who voice unpopular opinions deserve protection in our society given that American democracy

has always prided itself on providing a ``marketplace of ideas from which citizens can choose.

(4) In many young people's worlds, this marketplace may seem rather limited when one
 Feeley 2

considers that their schools and parents often dictate what clothing they wear, their access to

social media, their ability to express either their gender or sexual orientation, and whether they

support religious or political beliefs. So, its natural that this rising generation would want more

freedom to decide for themselves what ideas are important to them and how to express their

individuality. The other reason young people are lining up in defense of the First Amendment is

that free expression is believed to foster creativity and advancement for societies bold enough to

embrace it. Free speech empowers citizens to generate new ideas and inventions and allows

society to adapt and change, which is beneficial to the broader population.

While free speech has many benefits, I admit that it has never been allowed to be used to

justify anarchy in American society, but I can attest to its means of directing conflict into a

nonviolent approach within the social system. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that

speech that incites violence isnt worthy of protection, for example: Oliver Wendell Holmes, one

of the high courts justices, noted in a 1919 ruling in the case of Schenck v. U.S. that a man who

causes a panic by falsely shouting ``fire in a theatre isnt engaging in protected free speech. (5)

Inciting violence isnt the only form of unprotected speech, however. Robert Richards,

founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State University,

noted that other ``categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child

pornography and defamation. (6) Still, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is difficult

to define what amounts to obscene material unworthy of being categorized as free speech. (7)

Both high schools and colleges have been forced to grapple with students free speech

rights in connection with the educational process. For example, school district officials in Iowa

banned students in 1965 from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The students,
 Feeley 3

along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenged the ban and the U.S.

Supreme Court struck it down in 1972, concluding ``students do not "shed their constitutional

rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (8) Another example of a

clash over students free-speech and religious freedom rights dates back to 1943, when the West

Virginia Board of Education required all students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of

Allegiance every morning. While the boards actions may have been understandable given that

the country was in the middle of World War II, it raised serious constitutional issues. Some

students who were members of the Jehovahs Witnesses faith objected to the requirement,

arguing that their religion prevented them from swearing allegiance to anyone but God. The

Supreme Court sided with the students in its ruling in the case of West Virginia State Board of

Education v. Barnette, finding it would impinge on their rights of freedom of expression and

religious freedom to require them to salute the flag and chant the pledge in direct contravention

of their religious beliefs. (9)

Todays school administrators are still faced with questions about how students free-

speech rights can be accommodated in the age of social media. For example, some colleges such

as the University of Minnesota, University of Louisville and Purdue University have banned

their student athletes from tweeting to limit distractions and insure the school's reputation isnt

damaged. Legal experts have questioned whether such bans would survive a constitutional

challenge given they curb college-students free-speech rights. (10)

As new forms of communication continue to emerge, the question of what should fall

into the category of protected speech will continue to provoke arguments and controversy. Such

debates are healthy in a constitutional democracy and the passion the younger generation seems

to have for free expression means the debates are likely to be robust. Lets hope so, because the
 Feeley 4

First Amendment protections we all enjoy are one of the key ways that Americans differentiate

from most of the rest of the world. If we were to lose those rights, we would lose a crucial

cornerstone of our political system.