To What Extent Should high school Students be allowed to Exercise Freedom of Speech While on Campus I think that nowadays to deal with an issue of students free speech rights is a tough problem for High School administrators. The matter is that students free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Thus it means that students are allowed to exercise free speech while on campus. But what should school administrators do if some particular political, sexual points of view expressed openly may cause disruption or even violence? In fact school administrators have to balance between allowing free speech and preventing such bad consequences as violence and disruption. I agree with what Jordan Budd, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego and Imperial counties, who said: Mostly, the rules are fluid, based on the context of the statement and the situation in which it comes. The circumstances of any issue may show if it was just a gesture of ones intellectual freedom or if it was aimed at offending or provoking aggression.
... a strong relationship between student violence and use and sale of drugs, administrators make special efforts to keep schools drug-free, through both education ... Clinton signed the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, mandating a one-year expulsion for students who bring weapons to school and bolstering the "zero ...
Whatever the case, I think, an intellectual freedom should not be aggressive, it should be intelligent. Thus I come to the conclusion that free speech of students on campus should be limited by the form of its expression and the place it is expressed, in other words – by its rationality. According to the information given in the article Schools say they balance free speech with potential disruption (September 19, 2004), there was an incident which took place on North County campus. One student expressed his anti-homosexual points of view by wearing a shirt which had an anti-gay statement. He did it within two days: first day on the meeting supporting gay rights and second day the day afterwards. Did the student have rights to do it? Constitutionally – yes, he did. As the same article noted later, the Supreme Court allowed students to express their views through closing if only the message doesnt lead to violence or cause physical disruption.
But why did this student commit it? What were his reasons? To protest against homosexuals? Did homosexuals infringe upon his interests so that he needed to protest against them right in that place and at that time? And why should people who gathered in support of homosexuals see him wearing that message? Actually, students demonstration was not a place to debate. The only natural, I think, reaction might be aggression. Had the student made any attempt to show his anti-gay position before, in more peaceful circumstances? Then what was the aim of such, I would say, a spontaneous protest? To offend? I think that the administration of the high school drove to the same conclusion after the investigation of the issue. The measures taken by the administration were to teach the intolerant student. However, the courts tried to advocate the student, saying: It’s the government’s duty to protect them [students] from attack, not to shut them up. Personally I consider the actions of the student not a gesture of his intellectual freedom but such which are aimed at causing disruption.
I think the right response to such actions is to gain protection from them. Another case happened at Poway High School with a student who wore anti-gay statements for example – “homosexuality is shameful” on his shirt. This student wore his shirt the day before on-campus group was taking part in a day of acceptance of homosexuality. As a consequence of this, the student was suspended. To explain the reason of reaction of the school, the districts attorney claimed that the anti-gay statement could have caused disruption among students. Learning the circumstances of the issue, I conclude that the student who wore an anti-gay statement previously the day of acceptance of homosexuality did not want to offend whose who intended to participate in this day.
... days after, after the final decision of governor Georgy Poltavchenko. We may refer to this law as “law against gay propaganda”, “anti-gay law”, “anti-gay ... the Council of Europe also conveyed a statement calling on the re-evaluation of the homosexual bans in eastern european countries (including ...
It is notable, that he did not wear his anti-gay statement right on the day of acceptance. So he respected this day and everybody who participated in it. Thus it is obvious that the actions of the student were tolerable and reasonable, but not spontaneous and provoking aggression. More than that, his anti-gay position was firm and substantiated with biblical references. To sum up the issue, I would say that it is a real matter of an intellectual freedom. And so this student should have been allowed to exercise freedom of his speech..