Censorship Diet: Slimming Down Your Free Speech

Reckless dieting is unhealthy, as well as dangerous. Health is best maintained by eating well, exercising often, and avoiding crash diets such as starvation rations or elimination of entire food groups. The same applies to free speech. We are constitutionally guaranteed the right to free speech; but what exactly are the guidelines for that speech? Many people feel that free speech should be limited, diluted, or restrained to protect those who might experience discomfort on hearing someone’s opinions. Today, protecting the rights of individual expression without infringing on the rights of others is the biggest challenge presented by a free speech guarantee.
Americans expect to be able to articulate freely, and yet slap lawsuits on each other relentlessly for doing just that. It is those who limit free speech to nice speech are the primary threat to freedom of expression. So-called "nice speech" is expression which is usually mainstream, politically-correct and doesn’t cause disagreement. This sounds appealing, except it also limits the expression of thoughts that spark discussion or debate. Discomfort can occur both in those who are offended by the speech of others and those who seek to avoid offending, and sometimes the desire to avoid offending others results in the inhibition of free speech.
However, discomfort is a normal and often useful human experience. One usually has such a feeling when involved in actions or conversations outside the realm of one’s past experiences. People so often forget that the right to free speech isn’t guaranteed just so that we can all express the same ideas. The beauty of opposing opinions lies in the discussions they create, even if those conversations are difficult. Free speech is guaranteed in our Bill of Rights because, without free expression of thought, evolution of thought never occurs.
This issue is most sensitive in the instance of racial slurs and hurtful speech based on ignorance. For example, expressions like “don’t let them Jew you down” are built on stereotypes targeting people of Jewish origin as stingy. Many people, myself included, would be relieved to see the disappearance of such disrespectful speech; however, such regrettable expressions warrant protection in order to insure the right to free speech. Mean, threatening, or harmful forms of speech are like the toxins in our diets--many of them are unavoidable, but with conscious effort, we can easily overcome their effects. There always will be those who feel entitled to express opinions that are hurtful to others. It is in circumstances like these that working through the conflict in a mediated environment would be valuable.
The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that granting unrestrained expression to the citizens was necessary to guarantee the integrity and continued vitality of a free society. They also understood that there is no way to disrupt truly the evolution of human thought or the expression of ideas. Historically, in countries where the government has attempted to repress the expression of opposing thought, underground groups of dissidents have risen and rebelled.
In public schools, free speech rights are even blurrier than in the adult world. Because schools are operating in loco parentis while in session, they have the power to limit the rights of students. For instance, in the Supreme Court case Bethel School District v. Fraser, it was determined that schools are permitted to punish students who speak in a lewd manner in a public setting. Many schools deal with free speech issues by creating free speech zones, or areas where students can speak freely and distribute information on whatever topics they may choose. In 1992, a local evangelical church sued my high school, Prescott High School, because school policy prohibited students from distributing non-school related material on campus. A free-speech zone was set up as a kind of compromise between the two parties. However, it is sequestered in a section of the school where few students spend time, hypocritically giving the impression of supporting free speech while in fact discouraging it.
Free speech zones do not limit speech, but they do take away the power behind the expression by taking away its audience. For instance, in 2004, the National Republican Convention was held in New York City, and the free-speech zone was set up blocks away. Nearly half a million protesters decided they’d had enough of their forced media silence, and began marching. More than one thousand protesters were arrested even though the march was generally peaceful. So, though free-speech zones may have their place in public schools, seemingly they don’t have a place in the adult world.
The solution to our failing system of free speech is not to limit controversial speech in order to eradicate discomfort. The solution is for Americans to change their attitudes and open their minds, perhaps not by embracing the ideas they find discomfiting, but by allowing the expression of ideas that aren’t secure, accepted, mainstream thoughts.
So, dear reader, allow yourself and those around you a well-rounded diet: everything in moderation, no radical consumption or elimination of ideas, and frequent exercise of free speech.