Shut Up About the First Amendment

       How often have you wanted to tell someone to just shut the hell up?  These days, probably plenty.  And you have every right to do so according to the First Amendment.  The question is, can you make that person stop talking or expressing themselves in some other manner?  As usual, when it comes to the Constitution, the answer depends on a number of conditions, especially where you are and how you are expressing yourself. 

     The First Amendment covers five main areas of expression; religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition.  Regarding speech, the amendment says, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech”, which this post will focus on.  Speech does not necessarily mean the spoken word.  Symbols are a form of speech, such as wearing armbands in protest of a war or burning the American flag, and thus protected under the First Amendment.  But, if you have freedom of speech, why are there so many instances in everyday life where you can be stopped from speaking your mind?  Good question.

     Since I’m a teacher, I’ll use school as an example.  A student’s right to freedom of speech is a complicated issue.  If I open the class to a debate on any given presidential election, and a student calls one of the candidates a terrible candidate, they are in their right to do so.  If that same student says “F--- (insert name),” that student has some sort of consequence coming their way.  Yet, when I leave school, and drive down Quaker Highway, there is a house with a huge banner saying the same exact thing for anyone who drives by to see.  Why is there a consequence on school grounds compared to off?  This isn’t a gun.  There is no threat to other students or faculty.

      The reason is because of the purpose of the school and why students are mandated to go there.  Schools are for education.  Students are sent there to learn.  Profanity, even if not politically driven, is a distraction from the educational process.  The same can be said for T-shirts with beer ads or marijuana leaves or nudity (all forms of symbolic speech).  A student can and will be asked to change shirts, cover it up, or be sent home. The speech doesn’t even have to be controversial or offensive.  If one of my students stands up and starts reciting their favorite salsa recipe, I can ask them to stop, and eventually get administration to remove them if they refuse.  It’s not so much that the material is controversial, it is just not deemed appropriate for a school setting, and it stands in the way of my job.

      Even this came into question in 1969 with the case of Tinker v. Des Moines.  According to Oyez.org, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, planned on wearing black armbands to school during the holiday season to promote a truce in the Vietnam War. School principals caught wind of this and created a policy that banned the wearing of these arm bands, threatening to send home and suspend any student if they refused to remove them.  Three students wore them, and each was sent home, not returning to school until after the planned end of the protest (New Year’s Day).  

     The parents of the students sued the school district on the grounds that the schools’ actions violated free expression, and sought an injunction to stop school discipline.  The district court dismissed the case, calling the schools’ actions reasonable.  The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld that ruling.  But then the US Supreme Court heard the case, and ruled in favor of the students by a 7-2 count.  Their rationale was that students do not lose their right to free speech while in school, and that even taking into account that the school can stop behaviors that impede education, the principals had reacted only in fear of actions that hadn’t occurred yet.  The Court also made clear that armbands are a form of pure speech, and separate from the actions of those wearing them.

     The same rules apply to many other places we go to in everyday life.  Movie theaters, supermarkets, libraries, prisons, political rallies.  If you decide to exercise your freedom of speech in places such as these, and the mode you use impedes the purpose of the venue, you will be removed, by force if necessary, and possibly charged with a crime.

      Strangely enough, hypocrisy is protected by the First Amendment also.  I’ve had students in the past who are so patriotic and respect the American flag so much that they wear it as a tank top or underwear. I found that these same students do not recite the pledge of allegiance each morning (To be fair, I find myself to be nearly the only person saying it out loud every day).  At the same time, I’ve had students who rant about how terrible this country is, using the very Constitution that created it as protection for the words they say.  All of it is legal, and I wouldn’t want it any other way

       There are a million examples and what-ifs that make this right so interesting.   I personally am of the mind that when someone wants to tell you who they are, you should listen.  It’s helpful information. But I would also argue that the issue this country is having right now is not the right to free speech.  Instead, it is the false belief by many that we have a right to be listened to.  Any citizen has a right to go to Uxbridge Town Common and speak their mind using the spoken word, written word, or symbolism.  I have just as much right to ignore it.  I’m not a big fan of the so-called cancel culture.  I believe people, in the appropriate forum, can and should be allowed to speak.  The telling sign is if others show up to hear it.  The old question, “If a tree falls down in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”, comes to mind.  If someone gives a controversial speech, and no one is there to hear it, has it made an impact?  We do have a right to speak, but trying to make people listen is not democratic or a freedom.  It’s the polar opposite.

     The last point I’d make is that words should be fought with words.  There have been too many examples of words or symbols devolving into violence.  Granted, words can sometimes damage a person as much as other weapons, and emotional damage, although different, can hurt as much or worse than physical. But the difference is we have some power over how much we allow other people’s words to affect us, with the added benefit that we don’t give this antagonist the attention they are digging for.  It’s counterintuitive, but true, and the beauty of the right to free speech.  Oftentimes, silence can be the most powerful response.