As I was reading through some topics for this blog about freedom of speech, I came across the report in the Student Press Law Center about the highschool student who was suspended for talking about how to kill students. A couple faculty members overheard Lance Timmerings telling how to murder students in his school. When he was taken in the authorities found the word assassin scribbled on one of his notebooks. Lance pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct and had to pay $75 as well as complete a mental health exam and one year of probation. He was later allowed to return to school for his senior year. His excuse was that he was only developing a shooting style video game and that the faculty had jumped to conclusions. Lance's father brought forward the idea that Lance's freedom of speech had been compromised and that Lance should not have been punished over what he said.
After I finished reading the article, I stopped to think. Was Lance's freedom of speech infringed on by the governemt? Does a high school student have the right to talk and write about killing other students in his school? Or does such talk put others at risk?
Even though the first amendment gives all citizens the freedom of speech, the school officials did the right thing by arresting Lance. With the greatly publicized school shootings of Columbine and Virginia Tech always in the backs of the public's mind, it is reasonable to be afraid of our safety in school. The argument that Lance's speech should have been protected under the first amendment only concerns one student's freedom and doesn't take into account the freedom of the rest of the students and faculty of the school. The Bill of Rights not only assures us of our freedom of speech, but also of the right to freedom from harm. This could easily turn into an argument between the two rights. Which one is more important, or which one needs more protection. Can it be said that one right is more important than another? While freedom of speech is one of America's most well known rights, I think freedom from harm deserves just as much recognition. People seem to take for granted the individual's right to be safe. So while some might say it was unconstitution and wrong that Lance's freedom of speech was denied, others could argue that the only reason he was denied this freedom was to protect the freedoms of everyone else in the school. I believe the school officials were justified in suspending Lance. It was safer to remove him from the school and protect the other students and faculty, then to allow him to stay because of his freedom of speech. If he had been talking about wanting to kill his classmates and had pulled it off, no one would be quesitoning his rights. Especially if he had succeeded and murdered students.
TheModerateVoice.com says the Supreme Court has ruled that student speech can be barred if it can be linked in any way to illegal action. Talking about killing your fellow students can definitely be linked to illegal action. Some may believe that if we allow this exception to the freedom of speech rule, what will stop the further breaking down of our rights. To this I say we do not live in a perfect society. There will always be those who choose to abuse our rights and use them in ways only to hurt others. It is necessary to have some minor regulations established in order to protect the public.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosiphy says "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This is exactly what the school board was doing. They made the decision to remove a student from the school in order to ensure the safety of everyone else in the school. Let's be honest, if someone has something they really want to say, they are going to say it and there is little anyone can do to stop them. But by limiting what is appropriate and acceptable for school, the student is more inclined to think about what he is going to say before he says it.
Because Lance pleaded guilty to the lesser charge and accepted his punishment, the school board decided to allow him to come back and finish his senior year. Again, I ask: was the school right to turn Lance in to the police for his speech? Was the entire school's safety more important than his freedom of speech. To this I answer yes. It was unfortunate that Lance's talk about his video game was overheard as a plan to unleash an attack on the school, but what if he had been planning to kill his classmates? The faculty was only trying to protect the lives of the hundreds of people on school grounds. So which is more important, the individual's freedom of speech, or the population's freedom from harm? I definitely think the population's freedom from harm overrules one individual's freedom to say whatever he wants whenever he wants. While free speech is an intrigal part of our society, it is more important that we have boundries as to what is merely the throwing out of ideas, and what is percieved as threatening the lives of those in a public school.
Important Links:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1611
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=1365&edition=43
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1551&year=2007
http://themoderatevoice.com/society/education/13712/free-speech-except-for-students-professors-and-well-anybody/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your belief that Lance’s speech should not have been protected in this specific situation. Within a school setting, students must be temporarily denied certain constitutional rights in order to maintain a neutral, peaceful environment in which all children are given the same opportunity to be educated. Lance’s speech was obviously very offensive and disruptive to this surrounding. However, I do feel that if Lance were to do what he did outside of his high school, to punish him would be unconstitutional.
For the Supreme Court to say that “speech can be barred if it can be linked in any way to illegal action”, as you stated in your paper, is a contradiction to the content of the First Amendment.
The history of the United States is filled with instances in which revolutionaries and leaders accomplished great things by promoting illegal activity. Carlos Montes led the Brown Berets to oppose arrest and fight police officers; speech that would eventually lead to the exposing of police brutality against Latin Americans(1). Martin Luther King Jr. promoted resistance against laws that restricted African Americans from the rights that white United States citizens enjoyed. This speech eventually led to unity among blacks and whites(2).
In no way am I promoting or embracing the killing of high school students. Rather, I am trying to express that whether or not we agree with what Lance said, we must embrace the protection of speech promoting illegal activity.
Furthermore, this topic also brings us back to what we discussed in class about prior restraint and subsequent punishment. By punishing Lance for talking about killing other students is the same as punishing him for an action that he has yet to carry out, or, prior restraint. This, as learned from our friend James Madison, is unconstitutional.
As I stated earlier, I agree that the school officials were right to punish Lance for talking about killing other students while he was at school. However, if this had happened outside of school, Lance’s speech should be protected. Offensive speech is the only speech that needs the protection of the First Amendment, even if it’s content is grotesque and frightening.
Sources:
(1) http://www.fightbacknews.org/2003winter/brownberets.htm
(2)http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html
I disagree with this stance that students should be banned from their right to the first amendment in certain cases. My blog is written about the same topic, but form the other view point. I do agree that the safety of other students and their right to a peaceful enviroment is top priority, but that doesn't justify revoking one's born right to express their ideas. Timmerings speech targeted no one, and more importantly did not involve any action. That is the main point here. This also goes along with prior restraint, which even proves his punishment was unconstitutional. Timmering was being charged for actions he never committed.
The recent events of school shootings only heightened fear causing school administrators to act on first instint rather than the law. According to a SPLC report, "Some First Amendment advocates have characterized administrative crackdowns on student speech as classic overreactions following a large-scale tragedy, arguing that safety regulations should not leave the First Amendment biting the dust." This is exactly the case here. Would the circumstances be different if this all happened during a week that a video game contest was being held? The enviroment should not dictate the situation, rather the action or speech itself.
Lastly, the first amendment was built upon certain guarantees, reasons why there is freedom of expression. One being that freedom of speech act as a safety valve. Restraining one from realeasing anger and frustration will only provoke more dangerous behavior.
The first amendment was created to deal with these issues and schools today are not respecting our founding fathers beliefs and systems by punishing students for only excersing their rights.
Post a Comment