Kiss That Power Goodbye

By

"In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could not be punished in school for using curse words on social media when commenting about not making the cheer team while she was off school grounds. Do you think students should be held to the same standard when exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech whether they’re on or off school property?" 

My answer to this prompt:

Public school speech restrictions are in place to protect innocent ears and inhibit conflict. They benefit schoolchildren. However, the favorable result of a policy is not the only factor to take into account when considering its expansion. Before all else, we ought to ask if the entity has the right to take this action. 

In this case, the question pertains to the federal government and public school speech restrictions. Since 1979, when the U.S. Department of Education came into being, public schools have been government institutions. The government does not have the right to control what students do outside of school unless society  relinquishes it, as it has mostly relinquished the privilege of educating children. (The exceptions are diverse minorities: homeschool, Christian school, etc). 

Undoubtedly, the federal government never returns power once it has attained it. In the Federalist 48, James Madison wrote, “It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” In the application to this subject, school property constitutes the "limits assigned." Thus, it is important that speech restrictions be prevented from extending beyond school property. Otherwise, we can kiss that power goodbye.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book Report: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus

By
Image
An insane doctor in a stained, white lab coat stands before his worktable, on which is laid the gargantuan body of a hideous monster. He cackles madly as he pulls a lever down, and the grisly beast jolts and rises to stand on two green feet with bad toenails. The monster stares stupidly at the doctor for a moment, then utters three fateful words: "I. Kill. You." He beats the doctor over the head with a chair in less time than it takes to say, "unethical medical experimentation," and breaks a window to reach the outside world, where he will murder as many people as possible. This is not Mary Shelley’s story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. There are three major differences between the modern stereotype and the original novel: the Creature’s appearance, nature, and the character of Victor.  Big. Green. Smelly. Not the Creature. Shelley never referred to him as green. He is probably grayish, if he isn’t a human skin tone, since he was crafted out of pillaged pi...
Read more

IR Debate No. 5: Human Rights: A Hollow Promise To The World?

By
States make few efforts to promote and protect human rights. First and foremost, it is important to understand why human rights matter. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is created equal and bears the likeness of God. Fundamental human rights are endowed by God, not by government leaders. State human rights policies affirm that which is already true.  The freedom of expression, right to life, the right to work and get an education, and freedom from slavery and torture all fall under the human rights category. Being generally agreed upon as beneficial principles, these rights also contribute to international norms. Most states say that human rights are good and they are working on them, but they are inconsistent.  Inconsistency holds people and policies back. For example, the right to life is a human right and thus, in theory, it is supported by all democratic countries. However, abortion is still legal in 173 countries out of 195. Many of these nations restrict abortion, but tha...
Read more