Free Speech, Children, & the First Amendment

The freedom to speak as one pleases is one of the most fundamental rights of United States citizens. Everywhere from little kids boasting, "It's a free country, I can do what I want," to adults allowing a racist to speak because "it's his or her right," free speech is accepted as a fundamental right. The framers of the Constitution included the right of free speech in the First Amendment, possibly giving it priority over the other amendments. Some say this right is absolute, but others believe speech needs to be restricted at times to promote safety and order. But when is it appropriate to restrict speech? Whether the situation involves pornography in libraries, political dissent, poems describing dangerous actions, or tobacco advertising near schools, there are countless opinions on what speech should be allowed and what should be restricted.

Freedom of speech is so powerfully revered because it is a key principle in our form of government. Luther Keith of the Detroit News calls freedom of speech a "fundamental building block of a democracy." Democracy uses this freedom by considering everyone's views in political issues. If certain ideas are suppressed, the best political action may be disregarded. However if all views are expressed, the best course of action can be ascertained. For this reason, Kenan Malik of the New Statesman urges "respecting others by putting them on their mettle and challenging their ideas and arguments." He argues, "Without heated, entrenched debate, a plural society becomes but a hollow shell." Keith and Malik cherish freedom of speech because it compliments democracy. They also point out that "censoring ugly ideas will not make them go away" (Malik). For these reasons, they tend to support the libertarian idea that all speech should be permitted, even that of "the most heinous hate groups." They believe, "It's the price we pay to ensure freedom for us all." (Keith)

However, this right is not absolute. If one was to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, he or she would be putting everyone else in danger. This speech is not allowed. In her article "Disgusting doesn't make it 'Speech'," Ann Coulter points out that obscenity, specifically child pornography, is not protected by the Constitution. In an annual survey released this year by the First Amendment Center, 39% of the respondents believed "the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing rights" (Strupp). While Americans appreciate their right to free speech, many are willing to limit it to promote safety and protect children.

One example of the First Amendment going too far to guarantee rights occurs at libraries, which are often visited by young children. In Virginia, a federal judge ordered a library system to remove its Internet pornography filter because the First Amendment protects free speech ("Internet 'filters' "). This outraged people who believed the freedom of speech should be restricted to protect children. In a USA Today Editorial, Bruce Taylor calls this order "bad law and bad public policy." He goes on to say, "Citizens should be able to keep libraries open to everyone, including children, without [...] making our public libraries the only adult bookstores open to our grandchildren." Taylor's argument, based on the idea that children should be protected from adult pornography, offers a valid reason to restrict free speech. This is one case where limiting speech helps promote safety and order.

However, the libertarians (not to be confused with librarians) have their own opinion. They believe that "filtering the Internet is contrary to the purpose of libraries and the First Amendment," arguing, "You may as well remove all the naughty words from the dictionary." Again, these people believe the first amendment rights are nearly absolute.

Libertarians argue that the Internet "make[s] available every kind of idea. You may not like it, but you don't have to look at it, either" ("Internet 'filters' "). Although these absolutists are correct in saying that filters are contrary to the First Amendment, they are missing the point with their claim, "You don't have to look at it." The point of these filters is to protect children who may look at the pornography if it is available. The argument that undesirable speech should be ignored is correct when applied to adults, but incorrect with children.

The libertarians have more powerful arguments in other areas, however. In the political realm, free speech is necessary for the democratic style of government. But since the terrorist attacks on September 11^th, many have viewed safety and security to be more important than free speech. On the late-night talk show "Politically Incorrect," host Bill Maher said that the terrorists were not cowards, but that it was cowardly for the United States to launch cruise missiles on targets thousands of miles away. (Carter & Barringer) This is a valid criticism of the government's actions. These types of criticisms democratically ensure the government's endeavors are ideal and should be permitted. However, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer denounced Maher, saying that in times like these, "People have to watch what they say and watch what they do" (Carter & Barringer). According to Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment specialist with the Manhattan law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, "When we feel threatened, when we feel at peril, the First Amendment or First Amendment values are sometimes subordinated to other interests" (Carter & Barringer). This is scary, because without freedom of speech, America could become the totalitarian state that it has always fought against. Clearly, Bill Maher's comment did not put anyone in danger; it was simply a political idea. This idea may have been a minority opinion, but if minority opinions are suppressed, our democracy may become a totalitarian despotism ruled by the majority. If we did not have our freedom of speech, women would not have the right to vote and African Americans would still be slaves. In the realm of politics, unpopular speech cannot be thwarted because it is needed to spread ideas.

These two examples have been rather clear-cut. It is difficult to argue against censoring pornography for children and allowing all political views to be heard. However, some cases fall more in the proverbial grey area.

One of these cases occurred after a school shooting. Similar to the terrorist attacks, a school shooting is a threatening situation that can subordinate the First Amendment as Floyd Abrams spoke of. In this case, a student at a nearby school wrote a poem in the first person describing a school shooting. The student was expelled because he "might present a threat to school safety." He sued the school, claiming that his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated. The US Court of Appeals decided that the school did not violate the student's First Amendment right because the school expelled him to keep the rest of the students safe. The Court noted, "School officials have a difficult task in balancing safety concerns against chilling free expression. This case demonstrates how difficult that task can be" (Anderson).

This situation is similar to the library Internet filtering case because limiting the freedom of speech is protecting children in both cases. However, were the students in any true danger from this poem? Is it possible that this poem simply viewed an event from an unpopular perspective? If this was the case, the poem would be similar to important political views. Because it is unclear if the poem put children in danger, speech seems to be overly restrictive in this case. Speech should only be suppressed when it clearly will harm children.

In another interesting case, the courts ruled in a completely different way than the school-shooting poem. In this case, Massachusetts banned tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of schools ("Debate: Smoke signals"). The reasoning was the same as in the poetry case, to protect children. Since, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, underage smokers prefer the three most heavily advertised cigarette brands ("Debate: Smoke signals"), Massachusetts was protecting the school children from speech that would coerce them into unhealthy habits. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this reasoning, overturning the law because it violated tobacco companies' right to commercial free speech. Justice Clarence Thomas made the absurd prediction, "Attacks on fast food advertisements would be next if the Court upheld the bans on cigarette ads" ("Debate: Smoke signals"). Although Justice Thomas's claim does not refer to logic, he believes the benefits of allowing cigarette advertisements near schools outweigh the dangers these advertisements pose to children.

If a student's speech can be suppressed because of its threat to other students, as in the poem case, why can a cigarette company advertise while exposing students to the threats of smoking? Is a poem describing a shooting more dangerous to children than an advertisement telling them to smoke? It clearly isn't; a child is more likely to smoke because of a cigarette advertisement than murder because of a school-shooting poem. Then why is the poem suppressed while the advertisement is expressed? It appears that some speech is valued more than other speech. In these cases, the Supreme Court is unfairly accepting corporate speech as superior to the speech of children.

We now know how difficult it is to decide what speech the First Amendment should protect and what speech should be hampered to protect children. This ambiguity is what makes free speech such a controversial issue. Any speech that puts people in immediate danger is clearly suppressible, while protecting children is also a common reason for curbing free speech. Free speech in the political realm tends to be allowed at all times, although security threats occasionally hamper this speech, posing a danger to Democracy. In the grey areas, like tobacco advertisements and threatening poems, it is more difficult to decide what speech should be allowed and inhibited. Unfortunately, some speech is unfairly valued over other speech at times, like when corporate speech is valued more than the speech of children. It is nearly impossible to decide what free speech should be allowed and restricted, but we can rest more easily knowing our freedom, liberty, safety and order are always considered when speech is permitted or denied.

Works Cited

Anderson, Teresa. "Judicial Decisions." Security Management Oct. 2001

Carter, Bill and Barringer, Felicity. "In Patriotic Time, Dissent Is Muted." NY Times 28 Sep. 2001

Coulter, Ann. "Disgusting doesn't make it 'Speech'." Human Events 6 Aug. 2001

"Debate: Smoke signals-should tobacco companies be allowed to advertise near schools?" Scholastic Scope 1 Oct. 2001

"Internet 'filters' harm free speech." Editorial. USA Today 3 Dec. 1998

Keith, Luther. "Free speech sets foundation." Detroit News 5 Jul. 2001

Malik, Kenan. "Protect the freedom to shock." New Statesman 13 Aug. 2001

Strupp, Joe. "Press too far off first: Poll." Editor & Publisher 2 Jul. 2001

Taylor, Bruce A. "Keep libraries porn-free." Editorial. USA Today 3 Dec. 1998