The six cases this week all deal, again, with the first amendment, most of the focusing on the rights of minors. Oftentimes, it is believed that a student gives up much of their freedom of speech once they enter a school because of the strict and easily offended nature of the classroom. Viewpoints are stifled, mostly to keep parents happy and assure them that their children are safe while being educated.
The Pico case is interesting because of the harsh censorship the administration tried to impose. Even controversial books still have a learning aspect, oftentimes a social commentary. Especially with books like “Slaughterhouse Five”, there is a certain lesson to be learned because of its historical context. Removing books for simply being controversial is one of the worst forms of censorship there is because this hinders a student’s full capacity to learn and be educated on the world around them.
The Hazelwood case felt extremely relevant to me, as a journalism student, since I want to write stories that push the envelope and make people wonder. But there is a line to be drawn, as outlined in this case. The key here is to be fair to sources and to those directly affected by the content. It doesn’t have to be a “play nice” attitude, but it still should do them no wrong. I do agree with the decision of this case since a publication still must have guidelines and boundaries. Nothing is a completely open forum.
The Doyle case, if there had been the opposite ruling, would have eliminated any hierarchy in the workplace. Any employee could have claimed any reason for termination, and there would be a chance that the employer would be found at fault even though they weren’t.
The Pickering case, in my opinion, was a great win for free speech as a general citizen, not just an employee. It is wrong to assume a person should always be fully committed to their career, absent of any opinion outside of the workplace. The employer was another cog in the machine, but if he felt as if there was something wrong within the system, he had the right to express that view. Even the lowest employee is as important as the most powerful in any workplace, so it is fair to give employees the right to criticize the wrongdoing to avoid corruption or an uneven shift of power.
The Reno case is even more interesting when talked about in the internet age. The web is a very open place, and there are often few restrictions. It is very important to keep minors safe on the internet from inappropriate or sexual content. The decision that adults should not be censored at the expense of a minor’s safety is a solid one because one citizen’s free speech is not of greater value over another’s.
Finally, the Tinker case is another important case for students, especially in today’s America, where schools are looking to censor and coddle so that no one is offended in the end. Wearing arm bands as a form of protest isn’t violent, nor is it a cause that poses a danger to anyone. A school is an institution like anything else in America and a student is a citizen like anyone else in America, so there should be no outlawing of any nonthreatening free speech in any academic setting.