This week I want to talk about an article that I have read in college.
The United States is one of the few democratic countries that maintains and supports freedom of speech. However, a recent controversial appeal shows that America’s freedom of speech is more limited than ever. Tyler Harper, a Christian student from Poway High School, was told that he could not wear a T-shirt with text that could be offensive to gay and lesbian students. He wore the shirt during the Day of Silence, which the school had designed to teach tolerance of homosexual students to the rest of the student body. According to the Los Angeles Times article; Free-speech fashion, “A teacher told him that the shirt violated the school dress code and was inflammatory. When he refused to remove it, he was kept in a school office for the rest of the day” . Harper and his parents felt that this action went against his constitutional right to freedom of expression. The action taken by Poway High School infringed on Tyler Harper’s constitutionally- guaranteed right to freedom of speech by undermining the original meaning of the 1969 Supreme Court decision.
Harpers wanted an injunction
Harper’s family had wanted an injunction from a U.S. District Court in order to take precautions against the school continuing its policy. They felt that the actions of the school had unfairly and without authority, obstructed Tyler Harper’s constitutional rights. Strangely, the court rejected their request. Judge Stephen Reinhardt applied the armband decision that the Supreme Court had made in 1969 to explain why Poway High School had the right to forbid Tyler Harper from wearing that offensive T-shirt on school grounds. This new ruling by the court shows that the original intent of the 1969 decision has been misused to give the school rights it doesn’t have. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the First Amendment by allowing students to express their antiwar opinions by wearing black armbands.
However, Tyler Harper was punished by Poway High School for expressing his opinion. Not his opinion on the war, but on Homosexuality. The T-shirt he wore reads, “Homosexuality is shameful and Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned”. Even though Harper was wearing a T-shirt that has a potentially offensive message to homosexuals, his T-shirt did not ridicule or attack any specific homosexual students.
In what case can school suppress student speech?
The author of Free-speech fashion points out that this new ruling uses the 1969 decision to take rights away that were hard to win originally. “The armband case gave schools the constitutional authority to suppress student speech only when it poses a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” . However, Harper did not cause any “substantial disruption” or “material interference” by wearing that T-shirt. He did not point out any specific homosexual student’s name on the T-shirt. Harper wore the T-shirt only to express his opinion on homosexuality. Since the school had the right to declare a “Day of Silence” to teach students tolerance of homosexual students, why didn’t Harper have the right to his own opinion and the ability to show his opinion on the same topic by wearing that T-shirt?
People also have the right to refuse messages they do not agree with
It is necessary to remember that though everyone has freedom of speech, we also have the freedom not to listen to messages we do not agree with. People have the right to ignore someone’s opinion they do not agree with. But others must equally have the right to choose, not have their decisions made for them. According to Free-speech fashion, “Students certainly have a right to learn, free of bullying and harassment. But they also have the right to express opinions that their classmates might find offensive – as long as doing so doesn’t pose a substantial threat of disruption”
By wearing that T-shirt, Harper did not cause any substantial threat of disruption, because wearing the shirt was a passive form of non-violent protest. Harper did not fight or yell at any homosexual students. All he did was express his opinion on this issue in a non-violent way. No one can force a gay or lesbian student to look at Harper’s T-shirt or accept his opinion. These homosexual students do have the right to choose not to look at the T-shirt and they don’t have to accept Harper’s opinion. Furthermore, it is unfair to heterosexual students who can not express their opinions on homosexuality freely. When others argue that a homosexual student might be offended when he/she sees Harper’s T-shirt, could it be possible that a straight student would also feel uncomfortable when he/she sees something that is against his/her sexual orientation? Imagine a straight student who sees a lesbian student wearing a T-shirt with “I like Girls that like Girls” written on the front. Doesn’t the heterosexual student feel harassed as well? Will the school punish the lesbian student as they did Tyler Harper and tell her not to wear that T-shirt?
Banning students from wearing offensive T-shirts is not the right way to protect the minority
Merely banning students from wearing offensive T-shirts cannot protect homosexual students. Yet according to Judge Reinhardt in Free-speech fashion, “Students should be protected not only from face-to-face harassment but also from ‘derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation’” . It is true that a lot of homosexual students have been bullied by other’s prejudiced opinions; nevertheless, there is no way we can control a person’s opinion and we should not control a person’s freedom of speech anyhow.
I agree with the editorial from Free-speech fashion that “Reinhardt’s expansive definition could cover all sorts of utterances that gay students might find offensive – like a classmate’s praise for the pope’s opposition to gay priests or a civics class comment that states shouldn’t legalize same sex marriage”. Homosexual students should know how to accept or refuse other’s opinions without making themselves feel like victims.
Real freedom of speech
Real freedom of speech should let people express themselves freely. Each person has their own thoughts and opinions that could be injurious to others and there is no way that our government can or should try to control its citizen’s thoughts or opinions. We are living in a world where nothing is perfect. Each person has their own mind and has the ability to choose to like or dislike the statements of others. Luckily, people have the ability to improve themselves and move to a higher level when they learn to accept others conflicting opinions. Hopefully one day Tyler Harper will learn to change his opinion. But it is his decision to make, not Poway High School’s.
