Are Students Protected by the First Amendment: Argumentative Essay

In this era, the youth are both encouraged and feel more inclined to participate in politics than ever before. The internet, as well as public areas such as colleges and universities, all provide a space for self-expression. However, the media and youth have also taken it upon themselves to deem what is politically correct, leading to mass self-censorship amongst those who wish to express differences in opinion. Self-censorship can be defined as “an act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles, serves as an obstacle to the proper functioning of a democratic society” (Bar-Tal). One could almost express it as walking on eggshells, careful not to offend, face maltreatment, or be silenced. The fear-driven censorship of oneself not only is damaging to one’s conscience and hinders the tolerance of understanding others, but also as well as strengthening those in high power.

One of the founding principles of liberal democracy is the freedom of speech and the right to self-expression. This liberty is specially protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as it states that Congress is prohibited from ratifying laws against freedom of speech (“What Does Free Speech Mean?”). Despite this, many are taking it upon themselves as to decide a subjective matter: whether or not certain means of self-expression should be censored or not. “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” (Douglas) Evidence of such a phenomenon is shown in a survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, stating that forty-two percent of students are aware that the First Amendment protects hate speech, yet another forty-eight percent of students believe the First Amendment should not protect hate speech, which leads to the assumption that the rest of percentage disagrees with the latter or are unacquainted with the topic (“NEW SURVEY: Majority of college students self-censor, support disinvitations, don’t know hate speech is protected by First Amendment”). Executive director for F.I.R.E. Robert Shirley states how the study “…further solidifies the importance of FIRE’s mission. Free expression is too important to become a partisan issue in higher education,” further addressing the growing issue (“NEW SURVEY: Majority of college students self-censor, support disinvitations, don’t know hate speech is protected by First Amendment”). The favoring of one group of students’ view to silencing the other goes against core First Amendment principles; however, it is not students alone that are affected.

It is imperative that students be exposed to a diverse array of viewpoints and are capable of discussing controversial issues politically and maturely. As the press for censorship continues to rise, students in mock debates and professors are unable to prepare for expressing controversial topics in the classroom. This censorship has gone as far as to condemn Philip Adamo, a professor at Augsburg University, for a class discussion of a racial slur as presented in a book (Weiss). According to the article, the university practices academic freedom, which “encompasses the right of professors to decide whether, when, or how to approach controversial or deeply offensive material that is germane to the subject of the course” (Weiss). In spite of being no threat to immediate harm and the university’s policies for teachers to conduct their class however they wish, Adamo was fired from his position as a professor teacher honors and suspended until action takes place (Weiss). What this circumstance shows is how freedom of expression proclaimed by the university is being destabilized by what may be considered a social taboo. In order to create a future generation that is emotionally mature and educated, such things from history and reality in the present times must be recognized and capable of being addressed.

Although some may deem the lack of discussing diverse topics to be beneficial or create a safe haven for students; it could potentially be the opposite. The lack of emotional maturity from those refusing to discuss or hear controversial, or even simply differing political views, has led to backlash to people in real life and in the online realm of social media. This is harmful both physically and to one’s psyche, as there is the innate pressure to strongly seek peer approval, maintain followers, and remain safe. According to an article in Political Psychology, motivation for self-censorship is a socio-psychological phenomenon and therefore intrinsic as “Individuals adopt self‐censorship to maintain their positive self‐view” so that the societal members are not perceived as “slanderers and/or informants” (Bar-Tal). This inevitably promotes anxiety and self-consciousness in those expressing their opinions and could render a person feel helpless and devastate them from the inside.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Numerous overlapping audiences in the online world make it difficult to stick to one political standpoint which appeals to every individual. With that being said, online users face discrepancies in forming their identities when interacting with others. According to the International Journal of Communication, research has shown that a user’s “…conceptions of their audience and perceptions of political discourse shape decisions on whether and how to engage in online dialogue” (Powers). The 2016 presidential election illustrates perfectly just how social media had affected the youth’s perception of politics, having captured their attention in staggering numbers.

Research suggested that “Partisans’ views of the opposing party were more negative than at any time in recent history, and growing numbers viewed their political adversaries as a threat” and that “Partisan antipathy and political polarization made for ‘an exceptionally complex atmosphere for social media users’” (Powers). In a survey conducted by F.I.R.E., it was shown that seventeen percent of liberal students are more likely to feel more comfortable sharing their political opinions than their conservative counterparts (“Student Attitudes Free Speech Survey”). It is probable that such backlash has led to the inclination towards the party with the greatest amount of supporters, and it is likely these young minds molded themselves to stick to one side without being very exposed to the other while catering to an imagined audience.

Applying to both online and real life, this pressured inclination towards a certain political agenda has thus allowed government officials and news outlets to easily promote subjective standpoints in a society that continuously permits it. The trend supports those already in power to remain in their place while easily being able to manipulate an audience, along with silencing smaller voices. Research provided by the Emory Law Journal states that a whopping “sixty-eight percent of adults now get their news from some social media platform” (Elijah). As these numbers continue to increase, this suggests that these platforms could use their power to eradicate speakers and ideologies from the public eye. It is now a question of law whether or not there should be additional policing of the internet to prevent social media behemoths from pushing political beliefs onto others.

A Reason article presents an interesting notion with the line “…they must see themselves as above such dangers since they inevitably assign themselves the power to determine what is fit and unfit for public consumption” (Tuccile). A case brought to light by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education at the University of Kansas’ art exhibit shows evidence of this governmental need for censorship towards those wishing to express controversial political opinions, where government officials of the state demanded that a piece of flag-related art was removed (Bonilla). The flag was flown in an art exhibit being held at the university’s campus, but was a controversial piece and thus requested to be removed. However, this goes against the many privileges brought on by the First Amendment of the Constitution. A video provided by Reason TV perfectly elaborates the rules of Free Speech provided by this Amendment and how it applies to this scenario, explaining that “students at public colleges may not be disciplined for their speech” unless it falls into “true threats of criminal attack or face-to-face personal insults that are likely to start a fight” (ReasonTV). The artist in no way posed a true threat nor threatened any of the students with the piece of artwork. Thus the jurisdiction in this setting is unjustified, leading to more unnecessary self-censorship amongst the masses.

In conclusion, self-censorship is damaging in that it promotes fear of unwarranted punishment and a stronger yearning for peer approval. It is a socio-psychological phenomenon that impedes personal growth and emotional maturity in that it does not allow students to be exposed to diverse political opinions or controversial topics. The press rooting for censorship allows no room for smaller voices to be displayed to the masses and continuous cancellation of self-expression is being fortified. If this does not cease, power will continue to be exploited by government officials. In order to come together as a society, people must be able to freely communicate in accordance with the law and freedoms granted to be able to learn to go to a peaceful understanding with one another.

Works Cited

1. Bragg, Austin., Volokh, Eugene. “College and the First Amendment: Free Speech Rules (Episode 7).” YouTube, uploaded by ReasonTV, 4 November 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg4QLk64dGo.
2. Bar-Tal, Daniel. “Self-Censorship as a Socio-Political-Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research.” Political Psychology, vol. 38, Feb. 2017, pp. 37–65. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111.
3. Douglas, Frederick “Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, an American slave” Boston, Anti-Slavery Office, 1849. pp. 100-102.
4. Bonilla, Peter. “Kansas officials demand the University of Kansas remove American flag artwork.” FIRE, 11 Jul. 2018, www.thefire.org/kansas-officials-demand-university-ofkansasremoveamerican-flag-artwork/. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
5. FIRE. “NEW SURVEY: Majority of college students self-censor, support disinvitations, don’t know hate speech is protected by First Amendment.” FIRE, 11 Oct. 2017, www.thefire.org/new-survey-majority-of-college-students-self-censor-supportdisinvitations-dont-know-hate-speech-is-protected-by-first-amendment/. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
6. FIRE. “Student Attitudes Free Speech Survey.” FIRE, 8 Jun. 2017, www.thefire.org/research/ publications/student-surveys/student-attitudes-free-speech-survey/student-attitudes-free-speech-survey-full-text/. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
7. O’Kelley, Elijah. “State Constitutions as a Check on the New Governors: Using State Free Speech Clauses to Protect Social Media Users from Arbitrary Political Censorship by Social Media Platforms.” Emory Law Journal, vol. 69, no. 1, Dec. 2019, pp. 111–161. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=139915141&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
8. Powers, Ella, epowers@towson.ed., et al. “Shouting Matches and Echo Chambers: Perceived Identity Threats and Political Self-Censorship on Social Media.” International Journal of Communication (19328036), vol. 13, Jan. 2019, pp. 3630–3649. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=139171908&site=ehostlive&scope=site.
9. Tuccille, J.D. “Internet Censorship Is Only for the Little People, French Edition.” Reason, 6 Jun. 2006, www.reason.com/2019/04/11/internet-censorship-in-france/. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
10. Weiss, Ryne. “FIRE calls on Augsburg University to reinstate professor suspended for in-class discussion about racial slur.” FIRE, 11 Feb. 2019, www.thefire.org/fire-calls-onaugsburg-university-to-reinstate-professor-suspended-for-in-class-discussion-about-aracial-slur/. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.
11. United States Courts. “What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Federal Courts Online, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational outreach/activity-resources/what-does. Accessed 8 Dec 2019.