essay about freedom of speech in schools

Free Speech in Schools: What Can Students Say?

By Freedom Forum

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech , including the words we say and other ways we send messages about who we are and what we believe, such as the clothing we wear and symbols we display. But that doesn’t mean you can express anything you want, anywhere, anytime – school included. In this post, we answer some commonly-asked questions about free speech in schools.

A guide to free speech in schools: What is (and isn't) allowed?

Can students wear symbols showing support for or opposition to something.

Most likely, yes, thanks to the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District . The court declared that three students should have been allowed to wear black armbands, a type of symbolic speech, to school to protest the Vietnam War. John Tinker , 15, Mary Beth Tinker , 13, and Christopher Eckhardt , 16, were suspended from school for wearing the armbands after the school made a rule saying they could not. They appealed their punishment all the way to the Supreme Court and won.

This ruling said that public school students retain their right to free speech in school, so schools can’t censor just because they think something could be disruptive. It’s up to the school to prove that you’ll be disrupting the learning process.

More specifically, schools can only limit students’ expression if they can reasonably predict that it will create a substantial disruption or material interference in school activities or invade the rights of others.

WATCH: Frequently asked questions about free speech in school

Can students badmouth their school on social media?

Probably! Thanks to the Tinker ruling, your school would have to show that your post caused real disruption at school or specifically harassed other students in order to get you in trouble for it. As one Pennsylvania school district found out in the case of an F-bomb Snapchatting cheerleader (Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.) it’s harder for the school to reasonably foresee disruption at school when the speech occurs off campus.

In 2017, Brandi Levy , age 14, cursed school, softball and her cheerleading squad in a rant on Snapchat. She posted from a convenience store outside of school hours, but her junior varsity cheer squad suspended her for violating its code of conduct.

Brandi and her parents took the school district to court, arguing it didn’t have the right to punish her for her off-campus social media rant. In 2021, the Supreme Court agreed . But it also said schools can punish off-campus speech in some circumstances, such as cyberbullying and threats that disrupt the school setting. This ruling helped protect students’ free speech in schools – and anywhere.

Can students say a prayer at lunch or before a test?

Almost certainly! The First Amendment protects public school students’ right to pray alone or in groups as long as they don’t interfere with class or the rights of others.

What students (and teachers) can’t do is lead official, school-sanctioned prayers . As government agencies, schools must be neutral toward religion. They cannot endorse any specific religious tradition, including belief over nonbelief.

In 1992, the Supreme Court agreed with a Rhode Island family that sued their public school for inviting clergy to say prayers at a graduation ceremony. The court said the practice created “subtle and indirect coercion” to participate in the government-led religious activity. Similarly, in 2000, the court ruled that student-led prayer over the loudspeaker at a school event is considered school-sponsored and violates the First Amendment. In this case, the rule is based on religious freedom rather than free speech in schools.

RELATED: Controversial commencement speakers and the First Amendment

Can students publish something administration doesn’t like in the school-sponsored paper?

Probably not. When students at the Spectrum wanted to publish articles about teen pregnancy and divorce, the school district said no. In 1988, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , the Supreme Court agreed with the censorship based on the school’s educational concerns. It ruled the Spectrum was a school-sponsored project intended for learning and not a forum or an example of free speech in schools. This means that schools can censor if they have reasonable educational justification for doing so. Many – but not all – courts also understand the Hazelwood ruling to require schools to act in a viewpoint-neutral way should they choose to censor. In other words, they cannot censor just because they disagree with an article’s viewpoint while declining to censor content with which they do agree.

As of April 2023, seventeen states have enacted laws often called “New Voices” laws to protect student expression in school newspapers, too. This legislation, advocated for by the Student Press Law Center, narrows what the organization considers the vague standards for school censorship set in the Hazelwood case. And student-run papers independent of school sponsorship are protected from censorship.

Is there any other type of speech students should avoid?

Stay away from lewd speech, including innuendo. And, even if it’s just a joke, avoid anything drug-related.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel School District v. Fraser against student Matthew Fraser , who argued it was his right to give a speech with dirty jokes at a school assembly in Washington state. The court said that schools could limit this kind of speech.

Similarly, Joseph Frederick lost his 2007 case Morse v. Frederick . Frederick had held up a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner to get noticed on TV during a parade outside his school in Alaska. The court acknowledged the sign could come across as a joke like Frederick intended, not actually advocating drug use, but still said it was OK for the school principal to tell him to put the sign away.

Free Expression on Sesame Street: Celebrating 55 Years of the Iconic Show

Can Candidates Lie in Political Ads? A First Amendment Analysis

Related Content

Flag Desecration: Can You Burn the American Flag?

Obscenity examples: 11 times pop culture got banned, what is a gag order definition, examples and more, you have a right to complain to the government..

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, tinker v. des moines: protecting student free speech.

February 24, 2017 | by Nicandro Iannacci

Mary Beth and John Tinker

* Editor's Note: The  Tinker  case is featured in the National Constitution Center's 2017 Civic Calendar, which you can download here .

On February 24, 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students at school retain their First Amendment right to free speech.

The story of this landmark case begins four years prior, during the early wave of protests against the Vietnam War . Public demonstrations and university “teach-ins” were growing in response to a rising death toll and increasing doubts about the motives and goals of the war.

Enter Mary Beth Tinker , a 13-year-old student at Warren Harding Junior High School in Des Moines, Iowa. Her story is recounted with care in Peter Irons’ The Courage of Their Convictions: Sixteen Americans Who Fought Their Way to the Supreme Court , the primary source for this discussion.

On December 16, 1965, Tinker wore a black armband to school to protest the war in Vietnam and to mourn the hundreds of soldiers killed in action— a number that would approach 60,000 by war’s end, in addition to many tens of thousands more wounded or missing. After lunch, Tinker was called to the principal’s office, at which point she was suspended for violating a district ban on such armbands. By week’s end, four other students across the district—her brother John, Christopher Eckhardt, Christine Singer, and Bruce Clark—were also suspended.

The controversy made the front page of The Des Moines Register . The school board president, Ora Niffenegger, defended the ban as a “disciplinary measure” against “disturbing influence” in school. “Our country’s leaders have decided on a course of action,” said Niffenegger, “and we should support them.”

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union saw things differently. At a school board meeting on December 21, attorney Craig Sawyer insisted that the students be reinstated and the armband rule be repealed. Other members of the community also spoke, representing views on both sides of the debate. Yet no resolution emerged. When a board member tried to end discussion, Sawyer cried out, “I am demanding that you decide it. Take a stand! That’s what you’re here for.” Indeed, they did: The board voted 5-4 to maintain the ban. The dispute was headed to court.

In the first round, the students lost. On September 1, 1966, Chief Judge Roy Stephenson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa upheld the prohibition against armbands. Despite acknowledging that wearing an armband is a “symbolic act” that falls under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment , Judge Stephenson determined that the school district’s concern for “the disciplined atmosphere of the classroom” outweighed speech concerns. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was evenly divided. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court heard arguments on November 12, 1968. Dan Johnston, arguing for the students, pointed out that the district had allowed other kinds of provocative political speech, including buttons reminiscent of the Nazi regime, and that no disruption of school activities had occurred. Allan Herrick, arguing for the district, insisted that the board be allowed to preempt the “violence, disorder, and disruption” that could “break out” in response to such provocations.

Here, at the highest level, the students won. Writing for a 7-2 majority , Justice Abe Fortas issued the now-famous declaration that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Student speech can’t be censored, he wrote, unless it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

He went on:

Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom.

In a very brief concurrence , Justice Potter Stewart challenged the idea that children are entitled to the same degree of First Amendment protections. But the real heat came from Justice Hugo Black, whose blistering dissent insisted that the students’ armbands had, in fact, disrupted school activities—despite no clear evidence to that effect—and decried “the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary.”

He explained:

Change has been said to be truly the law of life, but sometimes the old and the tried and true are worth holding. The schools of this Nation have undoubtedly contributed to giving us tranquility and to making us a more law-abiding people. Uncontrolled and uncontrollable liberty is an enemy to domestic peace. … One does not need to be a prophet or the son of a prophet to know that, after the Court's holding today, some students in Iowa schools—and, indeed, in all schools—will be ready, able, and willing to defy their teachers on practically all orders.

Since Tinker , Justice Black has been vindicated, if only partially. In a series of important cases— Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeie r (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), the Supreme Court has chipped away at Tinker ’s commitment to a student’s First Amendment rights. Significant questions remain as to whether and to what degree a school can punish students for speech expressed off-campus or online.

Even so, Mary Beth Tinker is still fighting. At the National Constitution Center on Constitution Day 2013, she launched her “ Tinker Tour ” to promote “youth voices, free speech and a free press.” The tour continues.

Nicandro Iannacci is a web content strategist at the National Constitution Center.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Messy but Essential

By  Ana Mari Cauce

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Over the past year or two, issues surrounding the exercise of free speech and expression have come to the forefront at colleges around the country. The common narrative about free speech issues that we so often read goes something like this: today’s college students -- overprotected and coddled by parents, poorly educated in high school and exposed to primarily left-leaning faculty -- have become soft “snowflakes” who are easily offended by mere words and the slightest of insults, unable or unwilling to tolerate opinions that veer away from some politically correct orthodoxy and unable to engage in hard-hitting debate.

This is false in so many ways, and even insulting when you consider the reality of students’ experiences today.

In truth, while there is significant cause for concern about the level of anxiety experienced by students today, they are, on average, probably the least coddled generation of students ever. For example, at the University of Washington, where I serve as president, 34 percent of our students are the first in their families to attend college and about a third of our in-state students are Pell eligible, which in general means they come from families making less than $40,000 a year. College students today are also more ethnically diverse than at any other time in the past.

By contrast, college used to be something for mainly upper-class white men, with coeducation by gender or class not becoming common among the top universities until the ’60s or ’70s. Universities’ curricula and even buildings were designed for them. I lived at home when I attended the University of Miami, so my first college living experience was when I went to Yale University for graduate school. My hall featured a small bedroom attached to each larger bedroom suite with a fireplace and window seat. Those small rooms had been built for the valets that many students brought to college with them. Talk about coddled!

And indeed, students of that generation rarely had their tolerance or opinions tested by difference, because their life was almost entirely lived out within a homogeneous environment of eating clubs, secret societies and fraternities -- the original “safe spaces” where students did not need to deal with true socioeconomic diversity, and with that, diversity more generally.

Moreover, for today’s college student, the pressure to succeed is great because the cost of failure -- perceived and actual -- is much higher. “Gentlemen’s C’s” from a “good” college no longer automatically lead to a high-paying job in the financial sector.

There is, no doubt, some orthodoxy of perspectives when it comes to social mores, and it is no longer acceptable for students to openly speak in a manner that is frankly sexist, racist or homophobic. In more recent years, that orthodoxy has also unfortunately spilled over to target conservative political views more generally, which is something we must work harder to address. But far from being an “echo chamber,” college is often the most diverse place -- racially, politically, economically -- many students have or will ever encounter. They routinely navigate a world of differences that was uncommon, if not unheard-of, for college students of yore.

Debate, Discussion and Disruption

Universities are by their very nature places for discussion and debate of controversial issues. These debates are absolutely crucial to the educational experience and for developing citizens prepared to engage with democracy. We want our students to be able to analyze an argument and to be prepared to make their own. Critical analysis and the ability to think for oneself are and should be hallmarks of a college education.

The purpose of debate and analysis is to generate light, not merely heat. Many people with a wide range of viewpoints come to our campuses and do just that. And even more often, students are exposed to multiple, divergent viewpoints on topics of current and timeless interest in class discussions, in books and articles, on class-related chat rooms and message boards, and in coffee shops and residence halls. Such passionate, reasoned debates where the goal is to win on the force of ideas, not by suppressing or drowning out opponents -- when there even are opponents (not everything has to be an argument) -- commonly occur.

On our campus, we’ve debated topics as far ranging as whether or when divestment is an effective strategy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the role of animals in research, whether or not we should be a sanctuary campus, the dangers (or not) of GMOs, and the role of affirmative action (which is not allowed by Washington state law for admission of students or hiring of faculty and staff members). I applaud those discussions and all who organize them. They are vital to a vibrant university and a healthy democracy, and we should encourage them.

The polarization of recent years has made such debates more difficult on topics that have become politicized, such as those related to race, gender or immigration status. But that is not a problem unique to college students. We have to look long and hard to find good examples of tough, incisive yet civil discourse across differences on such topics. It’s certainly not something we often see on TV, in social media or in the national political arena.

Given the broader social and political climate, it should come as no surprise then that students and members of our community can falter when they try to have healthy debates on some topics, whether inside or outside the classroom. Engagement in honest, direct dialogue across important differences is rare indeed, but it’s simply not fair to blame this generation of youth for the fact it seldom happens. Additionally, something often missed whenever there’s coverage of a “speech shouted down on campus” is that those doing the shouting are often not students, faculty or staff members, but organized groups from outside the academy.

Compassion and Confusion

Today’s college students, like those of generations before them, have their own signature style born of their distinct experiences. They have grown up with a much greater appreciation for the real injury that sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of bigotry can inflict on others. They were taught, at home and in school, to not tolerate bullies and to report them to authorities. Colleges like ours have student conduct codes that explicitly prohibit abuse of others, including harassment, bullying and discrimination. So it is confusing to many students that speakers can come to campuses and engage in behaviors that students themselves would be disciplined for. And, beyond the confusion, they recognize that some people on the college tour circuit do act like bullies, at times going so far as to personally attack individual students in the audience. Standing up to them, even to the point of shutting down debate, seems like the right and compassionate thing to do for many students, particularly when these speakers come to campuses where students not only study and work but also live.

I strongly disagree with the intentional shutting down of debate. There is a critical reason for including the right to free speech and expression in the very first amendment to our Constitution. I do not question its primacy. But I don’t believe that the “anything goes” (short of violence) type of free speech is necessary in order to fulfill our academic mission of teaching our students how to engage in critical analysis and think for themselves.

It should be abundantly clear that, in recent years, we have seen some speakers come to campuses not seeking to discuss difficult topics but instead seeking to create a spectacle to advance their fame and agenda -- whether that is selling books or peddling a hateful ideology. Let us not perpetuate the notion that some of those speakers have something to teach us or our students and that their talks constitute learning moments. Their rancorous approach, and usually their content as well, is clearly intended to provoke a reaction, not produce understanding. They seek to produce heat, not light. They are using colleges as their stages and setting us up as their foils. Indeed, being blocked from speaking is often seen by them as a victory in their efforts to portray themselves as free speech martyrs. This, of course, is a phony honor, since many of their followers try to silence others through doxing and other intimidation, with rarely a word of condemnation from the supposed heroes of free expression.

Free Speech and Democracy

So why do we allow those who intentionally seek to generate heat, not light, to speak at a university? Their messages often go against the very values of our institutions, and besides, what they have to say is readily available online.

If it is a public university, the answer starts with the First Amendment and subsequent laws and court rulings. Collectively they establish that public institutions cannot discriminate based on the viewpoints expressed, no matter how repugnant. We can establish reasonable time, manner and place restrictions and act to protect public safety, but by law we cannot do so based on the viewpoint of a speaker.

But, for me, it also goes beyond the legal obligation. Speech by people we strenuously disagree with, and that is in fact hateful and repugnant, is the price we pay for democracy and to ensure our own freedom of speech. When we give the government the power to become the arbiter of what views are acceptable, then we have taken a step toward authoritarianism. There is no agreed-upon definition of what speech is hateful; I’m reminded of the young man who stood in the heart of the UW campus with a sign saying “Abortion Is a Hate Crime.” And, indeed, as we’ve seen in recent months, some believe that the simple act of kneeling while the national anthem is played is a sign of disrespect for our country and should be banned.

My position also comes from a personal understanding of the lengths to which some will go to suppress speech they disagree with, especially when it challenges the status quo. If a self-appointed group is able to use intimidation or violence to decide what speech is acceptable -- no matter if they are well intentioned or even if we share their opinions -- then we’ve taken a step toward a society where “might makes right.”

Moving Forward

So how do we go forward? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but since I am an educator it might not be surprising that the first thing I’d suggest is more education.

We’ve seen great emphasis on the STEM disciplines, and given their importance to our modern, technological economy, rightfully so. But there has been too little emphasis placed on civic education. That leaves students -- and far, far too many in our society -- unable to answer basic questions like, “What institutions must follow the First Amendment?” and “Why does it protect hate speech?” -- let alone to have the historical understanding of past times when free speech was cast aside to silence everyone from protesters against World War I to marchers for civil rights. STEM education is vital for a healthy economy. Comprehensive civics education is vital for a healthy democracy. Our students need to understand their rights are worth protecting -- and to recognize the difference between speakers encouraging true discourse and those seeking self-promotion.

Learning to recognize that difference starts with academic rigor. Faculty are trained to teach students how to investigate subjects -- from chemistry to political science -- with strong methodologies that question assumptions, rely on evidence, evaluate sources and equip students to assess the credibility of information and the person delivering it. Here at the UW, we even offer a course specifically designed to give students the tools to evaluate information based on evidence, aptly named Calling Bullshit in the Age of Big Data .

Second, when there is a controversial speaker, we must find ways to add light to the discussion -- or, at the very least, not contribute to the heat. Shutting down speakers elevates their message and frees them from having their ideas scrutinized. And frankly, violence and mayhem only strengthen authoritarian movements. There are many, many ways to stand in opposition to a person you disagree with. As educators, we have a role in encouraging students to do so in such a way that rights are respected.

To accomplish that goal, our communities can and should engage in counterprogramming, creating alternative events and gathering spaces, signaling to students that while everyone has the right to speak, our communities can come together in rejecting hateful messages. We recently saw the power of this approach at the University of Florida , where love clearly won out over hate.

As leaders, we have the power of the bully pulpit to condemn offensive ideas even when we must also defend a speaker’s right to express them. What we must not do is stand silent -- the very reason we defend someone else’s right to speak is because we must treasure and exercise our own. And as educators, we have the opportunity to teach the next generation of leaders and citizens that more speech -- and more understanding -- are the tools with which to preserve and defend their rights.

E-Textbooks Are More Popular Than Ever. But Professors Still Don’t Trust Them.

Nearly half of professors think students learn better with print materials, according to a new report—but demand from

Share This Article

More from views.

A Paramount Duty

Virginia attorney general Jason S.

Why I Chose to Be a Financial Aid Administrator

Even in this most difficult of years, financial aid is my calling, Steven J. McDowell writes.

Wake Up, Academia: The AI Revolution Waits for No One

Many higher ed institutions are preparing students for a world that no longer exists, arming them with skills that ma

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School?

Social media has eroded young people's privacy—and advocates are trying to win it back.

In 1965, when Mary Beth Tinker was 13 years old, she wore a black armband to her junior high school to protest the Vietnam War. The school promptly suspended her, but her protest eventually led to a landmark Supreme Court case:  Tinker v. Des Moines . In their verdict, the court vindicated Tinker  by saying students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The 7-2 ruling ushered in a new era of free speech rights for students. First Amendment advocates basked in the glow of the Tinker decision for decades.

However, the Internet has since complicated the meaning of the ruling, and those same advocates now worry students’ rights to freedom of speech are again under attack. Schools regularly punish students for online comments, even if those comments are made away from school property and after school hours. Although some administrators target cyber-bullies, others punish students whose only offense is posting an online comment that the school doesn’t like.

The situation has inspired Tinker herself to tour the nation’s schools to revive student speech rights, nearly 50 years after her famous protest.

“The digital age, with its wonderful capacity to democratize speech, is so important to students’ rights, but also carries new and interesting threats to students’ rights,” Tinker says. “If we don’t encourage young people to use their First Amendment rights, our society is deprived of their creativity, energy, and new ideas. This is a huge loss, and also a human rights abuse.”

There are numerous examples of schools punishing students for seemingly innocuous online activity. In 2012, after a Minnesota student wrote a Facebook post saying a hall monitor was “mean” to her, she was forced to turn over her Facebook password to school administrators—in the presence of a sheriff’s deputy. The school made an out-of-court settlement with the student, who was represented by the ACLU.

In other recent cases, student banter that would have gone unnoticed in the pre-digital era has drawn swift punishment. In Kansas, a high school class president was suspended for a Twitter post making fun of his school’s football team. In Oregon, 20 students were suspended over a tweet claiming a female teacher flirted with her students. And just a few days ago, also in Kansas, a student was suspended for a tweet that made the principal “uncomfortable” (in the wording of the school’s disciplinary incident notification ).

“We cannot allow the hard-fought battles for student speech rights to be eroded in the digital age,” says Lee Rowland, an ACLU staff attorney specializing in speech, privacy, and technology. “School officials aren’t permitted to listen in on chatter at students’ private gatherings with friends, or rifle through their private videos and photo albums. Nor should we permit them to do so simply because those conversations or images are digital.”

No one disputes the fact that students can be cruel online. Chip Douglas, a 10th grade English teacher in North Carolina, resigned after students created a fake Twitter profile that portrayed him as a hyper-sexualized drug addict. But some First Amendment advocates believe a subsequent law enacted by the North Carolina legislature in December 2012, the first of its kind, has gone too far. Intended to protect teachers from cyber-bullying, the law prohibits students from making any online comments meant to “intimidate or torment” a school employee.

Such broad language creates two big First Amendment problems. First, schools can punish any speech as long as they can cite “intimidation.” Second, schools can punish students for comments made after school hours, in the privacy of their own home.

“You can’t equate online speech created on personal time with in-class speech, and it’s dangerous to try,” says Frank LoMonte, director of the Student Press Law Center. “Schools are so prone to censor and intimidate whistleblowers who complain about school conditions on school time. Students absolutely must have some safe space where they can complain when schools are dirty, dangerous, or overcrowded, without fear that the long arm of school discipline will reach out and grab them.”

Student speech—often in defiance of administrators—has helped keep schools transparent. In September, students writing for an Ohio high school newspaper looked at public records and discovered that what their high school’s administration had called an “alleged assault” by a student was actually an alleged rape. In November, students at a Staten Island high school broke a story about how the answers to Department of Education standardized tests were posted online before the test was administered.

In the landmark Tinker case, the Supreme Court specifically warned schools that they could not forbid student expression simply because they wanted to avoid controversy. “In order for [a school] to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” the court said.

Tinker says that the students of today, just like those from her generation, want to express themselves using peaceful, creative methods. “They are using all the tools available, including online speech, to make a positive contribution,” she says. “Today, students have more than armbands.”

About the Author

More Stories

The Hot New Brand of Higher Education

LGBT Seniors Are Being Pushed Back Into the Closet

What are the limits to free speech in schools?

Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies and Dean of the School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions , Cornell University

Disclosure statement

Glenn Altschuler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Citing a rule that barred all images displaying drugs and alcohol, an official of a middle school in Vermont told Zachary Guiles in 2004 to remove a t-shirt that called President George W Bush a “chicken hawk,” showed three lines of cocaine, a razor blade and a portrait of the president holding a martini glass.

When Guiles refused, he was sent home; his disobedience was recorded on his permanent record. Guiles sued and won in a district court. In affirming that decision on appeal, the judges of the Second Circuit Court acknowledged :

We sail into the unsettled waters of free speech rights in public schools, waters rife with rocky shoals and uncertain currents.

As Catherine Ross , a professor at the George Washington University Law School, demonstrates in her immensely informative new book, Lessons in Censorship , the judges in Guiles’ case were right.

Our nation’s courts, including the Supreme Court, have not provided clear legal standards that can be applied to controversies regarding the free speech rights of schoolchildren. On issues including political speech, hate speech, religious speech and off-campus speech, the courts have left teachers and administrators without adequate guidance to determine whether their decisions meet or violate constitutional standards.

When is student speech censored?

Taking the reader on “a journey through the morass,” Lessons in Censorship examines the foundational Supreme Court cases addressing school speech doctrine and the many and varied decisions of the lower courts. It also looks at actions by school authorities, who too often are not knowledgeable about free speech and are motivated by a desire to maintain order, avoid controversy and minimize criticism from members of the communities they serve.

Drawing on Supreme Court decisions by the Burger , Rehnquist and Roberts courts that retreated from the view that the First Amendment significantly limited the ability of school authorities to censor the speech of students from the 1940s to the 1960s , Ross lays out the basic doctrine as it exists today.

A student’s speech, she indicates, may not be censored (as it had been in Des Moines, Iowa ) unless it is reasonably clear that it will ignite significant disruption or collide with the legal rights of others.

School-sponsored speech, which is very difficult to define but includes student expression in activities such as publications or student council elections that have an educational goal and are supervised by faculty, may be censored for “legitimate pedagogical reasons,” as in the Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier case, where articles dealing with pregnant students were deleted from the student newspaper.

And lewd, pro-drug, threatening, defamatory and violence-inciting speech (involving, for example , a nominating speech in a student election which referred to a candidate who is “firm – he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm”; or a group of students that unfurled a banner that proclaimed “Bong Hits for Jesus”) may be censored – and the speaker subjected to discipline – unless the speech is demonstrably “political.”

When order takes precedence

Of course, these principles do not cover all cases. And they leave judges in lower courts struggling to strike the right balance between maintaining order and protecting free speech rights in the school context.

According to Ross, all too often, despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of the argument that vulgar speech is always disruptive, order trumps First Amendment protections, as was the case in Bethel School District v Fraser .

And again in 2004, in a case ( Posthumus v Board of Education ) in which a student called an administrator a “dick,” a judge declared that “insubordinate speech always interrupts the educational process.”

In 2007, judges in the Second Circuit affirmed a Connecticut school’s punishment of Avery Doninger for a post from her home computer calling high school administrators “douchebags.” In 2008, the courts let stand disciplinary action taken against ninth grader Alexander Nuxoll, an evangelical Christian, for wearing a t-shirt that read, “Be Happy, Not Gay.”

Ross also demonstrates that many school administrators have censored student speech, even in instances when they could not point to any tangible risk of disruption. One school claimed that it could “punish any speech by a student that takes place anywhere, at any time, as long as it is about the school or a school official, is brought to the attention of a school official, and is deemed offensive by the prevailing authority.”

Two schools in Plano , Texas maintained that elementary school students do not have any First Amendment rights. And in 2011-2012, several schools around the country banned cancer awareness bracelets because they used the word “boobies.”

Important for schools to teach free speech

Given these attitudes and actions, it is not surprising that one public interest organization, The Student Press Law Center , receives about 2,500 requests for assistance each year from students and teachers who believe that they have been subjected to school censorship. Many more incidents, no doubt, go unreported.

As Ross illustrates, striking the right balance between order and free speech will not be easy. But action is urgently needed. A number of steps can and should be taken.

Ross recommends that lower courts provide more concrete advice about student codes. And that appellate courts clarify the law, as it relates, for example, to the line between “expression” and “conduct” and the meaning of “school sponsorship” of speech.

Equally important, school officials can and should, wherever possible, refrain from suppressing speech or taking disciplinary action against students, and, instead, use controversies “as teachable moments.” They might start by helping students understand the difference between personal and official messages and by explaining that permitting speech is not the same as endorsing it.

As Judge Frank Easterbrook has said, if schools cannot teach the foundations of free speech in the United States, one has a right to wonder whether they “can teach anything at all.”

• Free speech
• US Supreme Court
• School administrators
• Schoolchildren

Quantitative Analyst

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Freedom of Speech — The Significance of Freedom of Speech

The Significance of Freedom of Speech

• Categories: Freedom of Speech

About this sample

Words: 541 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 541 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Definition of freedom of speech, importance of freedom of speech, limitations on freedom of speech, controversial cases and debates, freedom of speech in the digital age, counterarguments and rebuttal.

• United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." United Nations, 1948.
• Shapiro, David L. "Freedom of Speech: History , Ideas, and Legal Due Process." New York University Press, 2005.
• Matal, Michael (ed). "Freedom of Speech." Oxford University Press, 2017.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1064 words

2 pages / 849 words

2 pages / 937 words

1 pages / 559 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Freedom of Speech

Every individual possesses the inherent capacity to make a choice between acquiescence and action. The concept of standing up for what is right embodies the courage to confront injustice, challenge oppression, and advocate for [...]

However, there has been a long-standing debate about whether certain books should be banned from public spaces, schools, and libraries due to their content. While it is important to acknowledge that some material may be [...]

In recent years, social media has become an integral part of our daily lives, with billions of users globally. It serves as a platform for people to connect with friends and family, share information, and engage in discussions. [...]

Eric Foner, a prominent historian and author, explores the concept of American freedom in his book, "The Story of American Freedom." In this work, Foner delves into the complexities of freedom in America, examining its evolution [...]

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. In my opinion, these rights have been abused in such a manner that the freedom of press has been pushed beyond [...]

One of our rights in the United States is freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, “…prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Listen Live

Here and Now

Here! Now! In the moment! Paddling in the middle of a fast moving stream of news and information. Here & Now is a daily news magazine, bringing you the news that breaks after "Morning Edition" and before "All Things Considered."

• Courts & Law
• Social Justice

The good, the bad, and the ugly of free speech

• Pamela J. Forsythe

Daryl Tempesta is shown with tape over his mouth in protest in April, in Berkeley, Calif. Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter and her supporters. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, file)

Citizens United rationale: Speech is speech

Campuses choose peace over expression, the right to be forgotten, trump and free speech.

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Brought to you by Speak Easy

Thoughtful essays, commentaries, and opinions on current events, ideas, and life in the Philadelphia region.

You may also like

Philly cops fired over offensive Facebook posts can pursue First Amendment claim, court rules

A dozen Philly police officers who were fired or suspended for racist and violent social media posts can pursue a lawsuit against the city, a federal appeals court ruled.

Breyer joins Gorsuch as honorary co-chair of National Constitution Center

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia said that Breyer and Gorsuch will be spokesmen for civics education and civility in politics.

2 years ago

The End of Roe: Protests, Celebration, and the Impact of Being Denied an Abortion

In the immediate aftermath of overturning Roe v. Wade, a look at the abortion debate, access to reproductive healthcare and the challenges for pregnant people turned away.

Air Date: June 30, 2022 10:00 am

About Pamela J. Forsythe

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples

Looking for exciting freedom of speech topics to write about? This issue is definitely worth studying!

🔝 Top 10 Freedom of Speech Essay Topics

⁉️ freedom of speech essay: how to write, 🏆 best freedom of speech essay examples & topic ideas, 🔍 simple & easy freedom of speech essay titles, 💡 most interesting freedom of speech topics to write about, ❓ research questions about freedom of speech.

In your freedom of speech essay, you might want to focus on the historical perspective, elaborate on the negative effects of censorship, or even share your personal experience. Whether you will choose to write an argumentative, persuasive, or narrative essay, our article will help! We’ve gathered a list of excellent topics, ideas, and questions, together with A+ freedom of speech essay examples.

• Freedom of speech as an individual and a collective right
• Freedom of speech and its limitations
• Negative effects of censorship
• The origins of freedom of speech
• Freedom of speech as a negative right
• Democracy and freedom of speech
• Freedom of information in the era of Internet
• Freedom of speech and academic freedom
• Liberalism and freedom of speech
• Freedom of speech in the US

Freedom of speech is an important topic because every person has a fundamental right to express their opinions freely. Our ability to express our thoughts allows society to change and develop.

Essays on freedom of speech can raise awareness of the significance of this issue. That is why it is vital to create powerful and well-developed papers on this cause.

You can discuss various topics in your freedom of speech essay. You can search for them online or consult your professor. Here are our suggestions on freedom of speech essay analysis questions:

• The advantages and disadvantages of free speech policies
• The struggle schools face from the perspective of free speech
• The appropriate use of free speech
• The link between the freedom of speech and yellow journalism
• Speech as a personality trait: What the freedom of speech can reveal about people
• Freedom of speech: Pros and cons
• Freedom of speech in the United States (or other countries)

Once you have selected one of the titles for your essay, it is time to start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing the essay:

• Select topics that you are most interested in, as your dedication can help you to keep the reader engaged too. You can select one from the freedom of speech essay titles presented above.
• Develop a well-organized freedom of speech essay outline. Think of the main points you want to discuss and decide how you can present them in the paper. For example, you can include one introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs, and one concluding paragraphs.
• Define your freedom of speech essay thesis clearly. You should state it at the end of the introduction. The reader should understand the main point of your paper.
• While working on a persuasive essay, do not forget to include a section with an alternative perspective on the problem you are discussing.
• Remember that a concluding paragraph is vital because it includes a summary of all arguments presented in the paper. Rephrase the main points of the essay and add recommendations, if necessary.
• Check out essay examples online to see how you can structure your paper and organize the information.

Remember that you should avoid certain things while writing your essay. Here are some important don’ts to consider:

• Do not focus on your personal opinion solely while writing your paper. Support your claims with evidence from the literature or credible online sources.
• Do not ignore your professor’s requirements. Stick within the word limit and make sure that your essay meets all the criteria from the grading rubric, if there is one.
• Avoid using personal blogs or Wikipedia as the primary sources of information, unless your professor states it in the instructions. Ask your instructor about the literature you can use for the essay.
• When checking other students’ essays online, avoid copying their ideas. Remember that your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Make sure that your paper is mistake-free. Grammatical mistakes may make the reader think that your opinion is not credible. It is better to check the essay several times before sending it to your professor.

Don’t hesitate to explore our free samples that can help you to write an outstanding essay!

• Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay Gelber tries to say that the history of the freedom of speech in Australia consists of the periods of the increasing public debates on the issue of human rights and their protection.
• Freedom of Speech on Campus The primary issue identified by the case study is the extent to which free speech can be used and is protected regarding sensitive social aspects and discussions.
• Freedom of Speech, Religion and Religious Tolerance As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should […]
• Balancing Freedom of Speech and Responsibility in Online Commenting The article made me perceive the position of absolute freedom of speech in the Internet media from a dual perspective. This desire for quick attention is the creation of information noise, distracting from the user […]
• Freedom of Speech as a Basic Human Right Restricting or penalizing freedom of expression is thus a negative issue because it confines the population of truth, as well as rationality, questioning, and the ability of people to think independently and express their thoughts.
• Freedom of Speech and Propaganda in School Setting One of the practical solutions to the problem is the development and implementation of a comprehensive policy for balanced free speech in the classroom.
• Twitter and Violations of Freedom of Speech and Censorship The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech.
• Freedom of Speech in Social Networks The recent case of blocking the accounts of former US President Donald Trump on Twitter and Facebook is explained by the violation of the rules and conditions of social platforms.
• Teachers’ Freedom of Speech in Learning Institutions The judiciary system has not clearly defined the limits of the First Amendment in learning institutions, and it’s a public concern, especially from the teachers.
• Freedom of Speech in Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech Even though the First Amendment explicitly prohibits any laws regarding the freedom of speech, Congress continues to make exceptions from it.
• Freedom of Speech as the Most Appreciated Liberty In the present-day world, the progress of society largely depends on the possibility for people to exercise their fundamental rights. From this perspective, freedom of speech is the key to everyone’s well-being, and, in my […]
• Why Defamation Laws Must Prioritize Freedom of Speech The body of the essay will involve providing information on the nature of defamation laws in the USA and the UK, the implementation of such laws in the two countries, and the reason why the […]
• The Internet and Freedom of Speech: Ethics and Restrictions Because of a lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law, a concept that is in itself considered unlawful by a strict definition of the First Amendment of the Constitution […]
• Protesting as a Way of Exercising Freedoms of Speech and Expression However, this department will be very careful in monitoring the behavior of the protestors and engaging in dialogue to solve issues that may lead to conflicts.
• Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary? One of the greatest achievements of the contemporary democratic society is the freedom of speech. However, it is necessary to realize in what cases the government has the right to abridge the freedom of self-expression.
• Freedom of Speech and the Internet On the one hand, the freedom of expression on the internet allowed the general public to be informed about the true nature of the certain events, regardless of geographical locations and restrictions.
• The Freedom of Speech: Communication Law in US By focusing on the on goings in Guatemala, the NYT may have, no doubt earned the ire of the Bush administration, but it is also necessary that the American people are made aware of the […]
• Freedom of Speech and Expression in Music Musicians are responsible and accountable for fans and their actions because in the modern world music and lyrics become a tool of propaganda that has a great impact on the circulation of ideas and social […]
• Freedom of Speech and International Relations The freedom of speech or the freedom of expression is a civil right legally protected by many constitutions, including that of the United States, in the First Amendment.
• The Importance of Freedom of Speech In a bid to nurture the freedom of speech, the United States provides safety to the ethical considerations of free conversations.
• Canada’s Freedom of Speech and Its Ineffectiveness In the developed societies of the modern world, it is one of the major premises that freedom of expression is the pivotal character of liberal democracy.
• Freedom of Speech in Modern Media At the same time, the bigoted approach to the principles of freedom of speech in the context of the real world, such as killing or silencing journalists, makes the process of promoting the same values […]
• Freedom of Speech: Julian Assange and ‘WikiLeaks’ Case Another significant issue is that the precedent of WikiLeaks questions the power of traditional journalism to articulate the needs of the society and to monitor the governments.
• Advertising and Freedom of Speech According to Liodice, the marketer should provide the best information to the targeted consumer. The duty of the marketer is to educate and inform the consumer about the unique features of his or her product.
• Freedom of Speech and Expression This implies that autonomy is the epitome of the freedom of expression in many ways. Perhaps, this is the point of diversion between autonomy and restriction of the freedom of expression.
• Freedom of speech in the Balkans Freedom of speech in Montenegro In Montenegro, the practice of the freedom of speech and press were restricted to some issues by the law.
• “The Weight of the Word” by Chris Berg From this analysis therefore, we see that, state interference in the wiki leaks saga was unwarranted, and it amounted to a breach of the freedom of the press.
• Freedom of Speech in China and Political Reform Although the constitution of China has the provision of the freedom of speech, association, press and even demonstration, the freedom is not there in reality since the constitution forbids the undertaking of anything that is […]
• Controversies Over Freedom of Speech and Internet Postings It must be noted though that despite the Freedom of Speech being a first Amendment right, subsequent amendments to the constitution as well as various historical acts such as the Sedition Act of 1798 and […]
• Government’s control versus Freedom of Speech and Thoughts One of the most effective measures that oppressive regimes use the world over is the limitation of the freedom of speech and thoughts.
• Freedom of Speech: Exploring Proper Limits In this respect, Downs mentions the philosophy of educational establishments, where “the function of the University is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train student in the process whereby truth is to be […]
• Why Free Speech Is An Important Freedom Freedom of speech is an important aspect of social life in a civilized and democratic society. Although there has been debate on the justification of freedom of speech, it is important to realize that society […]
• Human Nature and the Freedom of Speech in Different Countries The paper will look at the human nature that necessitates speech and expression, freedom of speech as applied in different countries and limitations that freedom of speech faces.
• The Freedom Of Speech, Press, And Petition
• How The First Amendment Protects Freedom Of Speech
• The Freedom Of Speech, And Gun Ownership Rights
• The Misconception of Hate Speech and Its Connection with the Freedom of Speech in Our First Amendment
• Limitations On Constitutional Rights On Freedom Of Speech
• Teachers’ and Students’ Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Internet Censorship Means No Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of Speech Part of America’s Constitution
• An Examination of the Disadvantage of Freedom of Speech in Slack Activism
• A Description of Freedom of Speech as One of the Most Important Freedoms
• How Censorship In The Media Is Taking AWay Our Freedom Of Speech
• An Analysis of Freedom of Speech and Its Punishments
• The Effects Of Technology On The Right Of Freedom Of Speech
• Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City
• Problems with Limiting Freedom of Speech
• How The Freedom Of Speech And Its Interpretation Affects
• Giving Up Freedom Of Speech – Censorship On Hate Sites
• Freedom Of Speech, Religion, And The American Dream
• The Freedom Of Speech Across The World Wide Web
• Freedom of Speech: Should There be Restrictions on Speech in the U.S. Democracy
• An Argument in Favor of the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Schools
• Freedom Of Speech And Violent Video Games
• The Importance of Freedom of Speech to the Progress of Society
• The Amendment Is Not Protected Under The Freedom Of Speech
• Should There Be Restrictions to Freedom of Speech
• Why Should Myanmar Have Similar Freedom of Speech Protections to United States
• An Analysis of the Freedom of Speech and the Internet in United States of America
• Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment
• Free Speech : The Benefits Of Freedom Of Speech
• Comparison of Freedom of Speech: Malaysia vs China
• The Fine Line between Freedom of Speech or Hate Speech
• Freedom Of Speech : One Of The Core Principles Of A Democracy
• Prevent Internet Censorship, Save Freedom of Speech
• The Importance of the First Amendment in Providing Freedom of Speech in America
• How the Freedom of Speech Is Possible Through the Internet in China
• The Importance of Freedom of Speech in Higher Education
• Hate Mail and the Misuse of the Freedom of Speech on the Internet
• A Comparison of Freedom of Speech and Private Property
• Importance Of Freedom Of Speech In Colleges
• Freedom Of Speech and Its Legal Limits
• Freedom Of Speech As An International And Regional Human Right
• The Importance of Protecting and Preserving the Right to Freedom of Speech
• An Overview of the Importance of the Freedom of Speech in the United States
• The Communication Decency Act: The Fight for Freedom of Speech on the Internet
• Freedom Of Speech On Students’s Rights In School
• How Far Should the Right to Freedom of Speech Extend
• Journalism and Freedom of Speech
• The Constitution and Freedom of Speech on the Internet in U.S
• ‘Freedom of Speech Means the Freedom to Offend.’
• Does the Law Relating to Obscenity Restict Freedom of Speech?
• Does New Zealand Have Freedom of Speech?
• How Far Should the Right to Freedom of Speech Extend?
• Does South Korea Have Freedom of Speech?
• How the First Amendment Protects Freedom of Speech?
• Does Freedom of Speech Mean You Can Say Anything?
• How Do You Violate Freedom of Speech?
• What Are Mill’s Four Main Arguments in Defence of Freedom of Speech?
• What Violates the Freedom of Speech?
• What Are the Disadvantages of Freedom of Speech?
• Does Freedom of Speech Have Limits?
• Why Does Australia Not Have Freedom of Speech?
• What Are the Three Restrictions to Freedom of Speech?
• How Is Freedom of Speech Abused?
• Who Benefits and Loses from Freedom of Speech?
• Is There Freedom of Speech in Media?
• What Are the Limits of Freedom of Speech in Social Media?
• Does Social Media Allow Freedom of Speech?
• How Is Freedom of Speech Negative?
• Where Is Freedom of Speech Not Allowed?
• Is USA the Only Country with Freedom of Speech?
• Does India Have Freedom of Speech?
• Who Made the Freedom of Speech?
• Why Was Freedom of Speech Created?
• Who Fought for Freedom of Speech?
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Social Justice Essay Ideas
• Cultural Competence Research Topics
• Personal Values Ideas
• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). 123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-of-speech-essay-examples/

"123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-of-speech-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-of-speech-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-of-speech-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "123 Freedom of Speech Topics & Essay Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/freedom-of-speech-essay-examples/.

First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although the Supreme Court had previously held that students in public schools are entitled to some constitutional protection, 1 Footnote See, e.g. , W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) ; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ; Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) . as are minors generally, 2 Footnote In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) . Children are subject to some restrictions that could not constitutionally be applied to adults. E.g. , Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) (upholding state law restricting access to certain material deemed “harmful to minors,” although not obscene as to adults). it established the controlling standard for assessing First Amendment rights in the school environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District . 3 Footnote 393 U.S. 503 (1969) . In that case, the Court articulated a need to balance students’ First Amendment protections with the goals and needs of educators and the community.

In Tinker , high school principals had banned students from wearing black armbands as a symbol of protest against the United States’ actions in Vietnam. 4 Footnote Id. at 504 Reversing the lower courts’ refusal to reinstate students who had been suspended for violating the ban, the Court set out a balancing test for applying the First Amendment in schools. 5 Footnote Id. at 514 . According to the Court, “ First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students,” and neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 6 Footnote Id. at 506 . Notwithstanding these protections, the Court affirmed the comprehensive authority of the states and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, “to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.” 7 Footnote Id. at 507 . On balance, therefore, school authorities may restrict expression to prevent disruption of school activities or discipline, 8 Footnote Id. but such restrictions must be justified by “something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” 9 Footnote Id. at 509 (citing Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966) ). See also Papish v. Bd. of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) (state university could not expel a student for using “indecent speech” in campus newspaper); but cf. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (upholding two-day suspension, and withdrawal of privilege of speaking at graduation, for student who used sexual metaphor in speech given to high school assembly).

The Court reaffirmed Tinker in Healy v. James , finding no basis to believe that, “ First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.” 10 Footnote 408 U.S. 169 (1972) . In Healy , the Court held that students’ rights of association, implicit in the First Amendment , were violated when a public college denied a student group official recognition as a campus organization. 11 Footnote Id. at 180 . Denying recognition, the Court held, was impermissible if it was based on factors such as the student organization’s affiliation with the national Students for a Democratic Society, on disagreement with the organization’s philosophy, or on an unfounded fear of disruption. 12 Footnote Id. at 187–90 . The Court suggested that how courts strike the balance under the Tinker inquiry may differ depending on the students’ ages. The Court emphasized that “[t]he college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas,’” but also concluded that a college administration may require “that a group seeking official recognition affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law.” 13 Footnote Id. at 193 . Because a First Amendment right was in issue, the college had the burden to justify rejecting a request for recognition rather than the requesters to justify affirmatively their right to be recognized. Id. at 184 . See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (upholding an anti-noise ordinance that forbade persons on grounds adjacent to a school to willfully make noise or to create any other diversion during school hours that “disturbs or tends to disturb” normal school activities).

In 1982, the Court faced a conflict between a school system’s obligation to inculcate community values in students and the free-speech rights of those students. In Board of Education v. Pico , the Court considered a case challenging a school board’s authority to remove certain books from high school and junior high school libraries. 14 Footnote Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) . The procedural posture of the case required the Court to assume that the books were removed because the school board disagreed with the books’ content for political reasons. 15 Footnote Id. at 872 . A plurality of the Court thought that students retained substantial free-speech protections and that among these was the right to receive information and ideas. 16 Footnote Id. at 866–67 . Although the plurality conceded that school boards must be permitted “to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values,” and that “there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral, or political,” it reasoned that a school board was constitutionally prohibited from removing library books in order to deny access to political ideas with which the board disagreed. 17 Footnote Id. at 862, 864–69, 870–72 . Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens joined Justice William Brennan’s opinion fully. Justice Harry Blackmun believed “that certain forms of state discrimination between ideas are improper” and agreed that the government “may not act to deny access to an idea simply because state officials disapprove of that idea for partisan or political reasons.” Id. at 878–79 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Justice Byron White provided the fifth vote for reversal, and he would have avoided “a dissertation” on the First Amendment issue. Id. at 883 (White, J., concurring in the judgment). Instead, he voted to reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on an unresolved factual issue going to the reasons for the school board’s removal. Id. The four dissenters argued that the Constitution did not prevent the school board from expressing community values in this way regardless of its motivation. 18 Footnote Justice William Rehnquist wrote the principal dissent. Id. at 904 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). See also id. at 885 (Burger, C.J., dissenting), 893 (Powell, J., dissenting), 921 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

The Court struck a different balance between student freedom and educator authority in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 19 Footnote 484 U.S. 260 (1988) . in which it relied on public forum analysis to hold that editorial control and censorship of a student newspaper sponsored by a public high school need be only “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” 20 Footnote Id. at 273 . The Court distinguished the facts of Kuhlmeier from Tinker , explaining that “[t]he question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech—the question that we addressed in Tinker —-is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech.” 21 Footnote Id. at 270–71 . The student newspaper at issue had been created by school officials as a part of the school curriculum, and served “as a supervised learning experience for journalism students.” 22 Footnote Id. at 270 . Because the newspaper was not a public forum, school officials could maintain editorial control so long as their actions were “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” 23 Footnote Id. at 273 . Thus, a principal’s decision to remove an article describing student pregnancy in a manner believed inappropriate for younger students, and another article on divorce critical of a named parent, were upheld. 24 Footnote Id. at 276 .

In Morse v. Frederick , 25 Footnote 551 U.S. 393 (2007) . the Court held that a school could punish a pupil for displaying a banner that said, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” at a school-sponsored event even absent evidence the banner caused substantial disruption. 26 Footnote Id. at 401 . The Court reasoned that schools “may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use,” 27 Footnote Id. at 397 . but indicated that it might have reached a different result if the banner had addressed the issue of “the criminalization of drug use or possession.” 28 Footnote Id. at 403 . In his concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito commented that the Court’s opinion “provides no support for any restriction on speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue.” 29 Footnote Id. at 422 .

While the Kuhlmeier and Morse cases focused on applying Tinker to on-campus speech, the Court addressed Tinker 's application to off-campus speech in its 2021 Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. decision. 30 Footnote No. 20-255 (U.S. June 23, 2021) . In Mahanoy , the Court held that while public schools may have a special interest in some off-campus student speech, there are several features of off-campus speech that diminish “the unique educational characteristics that might call for the special First Amendment leeway” to regulate speech that Tinker provided. 31 Footnote Id. at 5–7 . The Court identified three distinguishing characteristics of off-campus speech that the Court reasoned made the Tinker standards less applicable. 32 Footnote Id. at 7 . First, off-campus speech, in some circumstances, should fall within the zone of parental, rather than school officials', responsibility. 33 Footnote Id. Second, the Court reasoned that allowing schools to regulate off-campus speech would provide an opportunity to regulate student speech 24 hours a day, which may, in effect, chill students’ protected speech. 34 Footnote Id. Third, the Court emphasized that while a school does have authority to regulate speech that interrupts the school’s work, 35 Footnote The Court also reiterated that, pursuant to Tinker , schools have a “special interest in regulating speech that ‘materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’” Id. schools also have an interest in protecting students’ unpopular expressions, as America’s public schools are “the nurseries of democracy.” 36 Footnote Id. Although the Court recognized that some off-campus speech—-such as severe bullying, threats, or participation in online school activities—may require school regulation, it was hesitant to establish any clear general rules about what constitutes off-campus speech. 37 Footnote Id. at 5–6 . In light of these considerations, the Court held that a school could not regulate a student’s social media posts that criticized the school because the circumstances of the speech—the fact that the posts were made at an off-campus convenience store on a personal cellphone to a limited group of people and did not name the specific school or school authorities—diminished the school’s interest in regulation. 38 Footnote Id. at 7–8 .

The line of cases from Tinker to Mahanoy address the First Amendment rights of school and university students. Teachers and other employees of schools also have rights, but those rights are generally analyzed under rules that apply to the government as an employer. 39 Footnote See, e.g. , Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S., 589 (1967) . See also Amdt1.7.9.1 Loyalty Oaths, Amdt1.7.9.2 Political Activities and Government Employees, Amdt1.7.9.3 Honoraria and Government Employees, and Amdt1.7.9.4 Pickering Balancing Test for Government Employee Speech.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Freedom of Speech in English for Students

• Updated on  
• Jun 1, 2024

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution grants freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. This freedom guarantees us to express our thoughts, and opinions and share experiences. This freedom is not only related to an individual but to the media, political parties, and government also. As a student, you must know all about your fundamental rights and how to exercise them. Today, we will discuss an essay on freedom of speech and how it can be exercised.

Short Essay on Freedom of Speech

Quick Read: Essay on Child Labour

Long Essay on Freedom of Speech

Also Read: Essay on Freedom in 100, 200 and 300 Words

A.1 Freedom of speech is one of the constitutional rights of our democracy. The freedom of speech states, “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”

A.2 The concept of freedom of speech goes back to ancient times when many of our writers and artists displayed the freedom of their opinions and viewpoints through their writings or artworks.

A.3 Right to Speech faces several challenges in the modern world. One of the challenges is the misuse of this freedom. People associate this right with the freedom to say anything that comes to their mind. This gives rise to hate speech and the spreading of misinformation. The power of hate speech cannot be underestimated since it can instigate violence and undermine public trust.

Popular Essay Topics

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.  

Bhumika Sharma

A writer with a fresh perspective on thoughts, I have an year of experience in writing the blogs on various topics. Here, you will find my blogs for the students and education purpose.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech

By Cass R. Sunstein

Mr. Sunstein is a law professor at Harvard and the author of “Campus Free Speech: A Pocket Guide.”

Last spring, protests at numerous American universities, prompted by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, produced fierce debates over freedom of speech on campus.

Colleges and universities struggled mightily over how to mount an appropriate response. The University of Pennsylvania refused to allow a screening of a movie that was sharply critical of Israel. Brandeis University barred a pro-Palestinian student group in response to inflammatory statements made by its national chapter.

At Columbia, police officers arrested more than 100 students in an effort to empty the school’s pro-Palestinian encampment; classes were later moved online . But at Northwestern, the administration entered into a deal with protesters in which almost all of their tents were removed in return for multiple commitments by the university, including an agreement to provide the “full cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern for the duration of their undergraduate careers.”

There have been intense debates about whether antisemitic speech, as such, should be banned on campus and about the right definition of antisemitic speech. With the new academic year starting alongside a looming presidential election, we can expect protest activity on a host of issues, raising fresh questions about free speech on campus.

To answer those questions, we should turn to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Those words provide the right foundation for forging a new consensus about the scope and importance of free speech in higher education.

As a rallying cry, that consensus should endorse the greatest sentence ever written by a Supreme Court justice. In 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote , “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Essay on Freedom of Speech in English Free PDF download

Download Important English Essay on the Topic - Freedom of Speech Free PDF from Vedantu

One of the fundamental rights of the citizens of India is ‘Freedom of Speech’. This is allowed to the citizens by a lot of countries to empower the citizens to share their own thoughts and views. This freedom of speech essay is for students of class 5 and above. The language used in this essay is plain and simple for a better understanding of the students. This freedom of speech essay example will help the students write a paragraph on freedom of speech in their own words easily.

Long Essay on Freedom of Speech

The phrase “Freedom of Speech” has been misinterpreted by some individuals who either do not actually understand the meaning of the phrase completely or have a totally different agenda in mind altogether. Every democratic country gives its citizens this freedom. The same is guaranteed by the Constitution of India too. Irrespective of your gender, religion, caste, or creed, you are guaranteed that freedom as an Indian. The values of democracy in a country are defined by this guaranteed fundamental freedom. The freedom to practice any religion, the freedom to express opinions and disagreeing viewpoints without hurting the sentiments or causing violence is what India is essentially made up of.

Indians stand out for their secularism and for spreading democratic values across the world. Thus, to save and celebrate democracy, enforcing freedom of speech in India becomes a necessity. Freedom of speech is not only about the fundamental rights, it’s also a fundamental duty to be done by every citizen rightfully so as to save the essence of democracy.

In developed democracies like the US, UK, Germany or France, we see a “freedom of speech” that is different from what we see in authoritarian countries like China, Malaysia or Syria and failed democratic countries like Pakistan or Rwanda. These governance systems failed because they lacked freedom of speech. Freedom of press gives us a yardstick to gauge the freedom of speech in a country. A healthy, liberal and strong democracy is reflected by a strong media presence in a country, since they are supposed to be the voice of the common people. A democracy that has a stomach for criticisms and disagreements is taken in a positive way. 

Some governments get very hostile when faced with any form of criticism and so they try to oppress any voices that might stand against them. This becomes a dangerous model of governance for any country. For example, India has more than hundred and thirty crores of population now and we can be sure that every individual will not have the same thought process and same views and opinions about one thing. A true democracy is made by the difference of opinions and the respect people have for each other in the team that is responsible for making the policies.

Before making a choice, all aspects and angles of the topic should be taken into consideration. A good democracy will involve all the people - supporters and critics alike, before formulating a policy, but a bad one will sideline its critics, and force authoritarian and unilateral policies upon all of the citizens.

Sedition law, a British-era law, was a weapon that was used in India to stifle criticism and curb freedom of speech during the pre-independence era. Through section 124A of Indian Penal Code, the law states that if a person with his words, written or spoken, brings hatred, contempt or excites tension towards a government or an individual can be fined or jailed or fined and jailed both. This law was used by the Britishers to stifle the freedom fighters. Today it is being used by the political parties to silence criticism and as a result is harming the democratic values of the nation. 

Many laws in India also protect the people in rightfully exercising their freedom of expression but the implementation of these laws is proving to be a challenge. Freedom of speech cannot be absolute. In the name of freedom of speech, hatred, tensions, bigotry and violence too cannot be caused in the society. It will then become ironically wrong to allow freedom of speech in the first place. Freedom of speech and expression should not become the reason for chaos and anarchy in a nation. Freedom of speech was stifled when article 370 got revoked in Kashmir. Not that the government was trying to go against the democratic values, but they had to prevent the spread of fake news, terrorism or any type of communal tensions in those areas.

Short Essay on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech allows the people of our country to express themselves, and share their ideas, views and opinions openly. As a result, the public and the media can comment on any political activity and also express their dissent towards anything they think is not appropriate.

Various other countries too provide freedom of speech to their citizens but they have certain limitations. Different countries have different restrictions on their freedom of speech. Some countries also do not allow this fundamental right at all and the best example being North Korea. There, the media or the public are not allowed to speak against the government. It becomes a punishable offence to criticize the government or the ministers or the political parties.

Key Highlights of the Essay - Freedom of Speech

Every democratic country gives its citizens the Freedom of Speech so as to enable the citizens to freely express their individual views, ideas and concerns. The freedom to be able to practice any religion, to be able to express individual secularism and for spreading democratic values across the world. In order to be able to save and to celebrate democracy, enforcing freedom of speech in India Is essential. Freedom of speech  about fundamental rights is also a fundamental duty of citizens in order to save the essence of democracy.  In a country, a healthy, liberal and strong democracy is always  reflected and can be seen through a strong media presence, as the media are the voice of the common people.  When faced with any form of criticism, we see some governments get very hostile,  and they  try to oppress  and stop any kind of  voices that might go against them. This is not favorable for any country. 

A good democracy involves all the people - all their various  supporters and critics alike, before they begin formulating any policies. India had the Sedition law, a British-era law that is used to stifle criticism and curb freedom of speech during the pre-independence era. The section 124A of Indian Penal Code, this law of sedition stated that if a person with his words, written or spoken, brings hatred, contempt or excites tension towards a government or an individual, then he can be fined or jailed or both. Using  freedom of speech, people spread hatred, unnecessary tensions, bigotry and some amount of violence too in the society. Ironically  in such cases, it will be wrong to allow freedom of speech. The reasons for chaos and anarchy in a nation should not be due to  Freedom of speech and expression. This law was stifled when article 370 got revoked in Kashmir, in order to prevent the spread of fake news, terrorism or any type of communal tensions in those areas.

Freedom of speech gives people of our country, the freedom to express themselves, to be able to share their ideas, views and opinions openly, where the public and the media can express and comment on any political activities and can also be able to express their dissent towards anything they think is not appropriate. Different countries have different restrictions on their freedom of speech. And it is not proper to comment on that .In Fact, there are some countries which does not allow this fundamental right , for example, North Korea where neither the media nor the public have any right to speak against or even for the government and it is a punishable offense to openly criticize the government or the or anyone in particular.

While freedom of speech lets the society grow it could have certain negative outcomes. It should not be used to disrespect or instigate others. The media too should not misuse it. We, the people of this nation, should act responsibly towards utilizing its freedom of speech and expression. Lucky we are to be citizens of India. It’s a nation that respects all its citizens and gives them the rights needed for their development and growth.

A fundamental right of every citizen of India, the  ‘Freedom of Speech’ allows citizens to share their individual thoughts and views.

FAQs on Essay on Freedom of Speech in English Free PDF download

1. Mention five lines for Freedom of Speech Essay?

i) A fundamental right that is guaranteed to citizens of a country to be able to express their opinions and points of view without any kind of censorship.

ii) A democracy’s health depends on the extent of freedom of expression of all its citizens.

iii) Freedom of speech is never absolute in nature.

iv) New Zealand, USA or UK rank  high in terms of freedom of speech by its citizens.

v) A fundamental right in the Indian constitution is the Freedom of Speech and Expression.

2. Explain Freedom of Speech?

A fundamental right of every citizen of India, Freedom Of Speech allows every citizen the freedom and the right to express all their views, concerns, ideas and issues relating to anything about their country. Freedom of Speech is never actual in nature  and has its limits too. It cannot be used for any kind of illegal purposes.The health of a democracy depends on the extent of freedom of expression of its citizens.

3. What happens when there is no Freedom of Speech?

A country will become a police and military state with no democratic and humanitarian values in it if there is no freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right for all citizens, and a failure to not being able to express one’s ideas, beliefs, and thoughts will result in a non authoritarian and non democratic country.  Failure to have freedom of speech in a country would mean that the rulers or the governments of those countries have no respect for its citizens.

4. Where can we get study material related to essay writing ?

It is important to practice some of the important questions in order to do well. Vedantu.com offers these important questions along with answers that have been formulated in a well structured, well researched, and easy to understand manner. Various essay writing topics, letter writing samples, comprehension passages are all available at the online portals today. Practicing and studying with the help of these enable the students to measure their level of proficiency, and also allows them to understand the difficult questions with ease. 

You can avail all the well-researched and good quality chapters, sample papers, syllabus on various topics from the website of Vedantu and its mobile application available on the play store. 

5. Why should students choose Vedantu for an essay on the topic 'Freedom of Speech’?

Essay writing is important for students   as it helps them increase their brain and vocabulary power. Today it is important to be able to practice some important topics, samples and questions to be able to score well in the exams. Vedantu.com offers these important questions along with answers that have been formulated in a well structured, well researched, and easy to understand manner. The NCERT and other study material along with their explanations are very easily accessible from Vedantu.com and can be downloaded too. Practicing with the help of these questions along with the solutions enables the students to measure their level of proficiency, and also allows them to understand the difficult questions with ease. 

6. What is Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of speech is the ability to express our opinions without any fear.

7. Which country allows the highest level of Freedom of Speech to its citizens?

The USA is at the highest with a score of 5.73.

8. Is Freedom of Speech absolute?

No, freedom of speech cannot be absolute. It has limitations.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

• Editorial Independence
• Volokh Daily Email

Free Speech

Free Speech and the Educational Mission

Some of the hardest free speech issues arise when a university argues that restrictions are justified by its "educational mission.".

Cass Sunstein | 9.7.2024 11:33 AM

Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment. Their private counterparts are not (though a state might choose to apply the requirements of the First Amendment to them, as California has largely done). But if private universities choose to follow the First Amendment, they will make life a lot easier, and also a lot better, for faculty, administrators, and students alike.

One reason is that First Amendment principles make most cases easy.

The First Amendment does not protect plagiarism, sexual harassment, or true threats ("I will hurt you if I see you in the dining room again"). At the same time, the First Amendment protects a wide range of viewpoints, including those that many consider, or that just are, offensive,  hurtful, insulting, or humiliating.

If someone on campus says, "Capitalism is racism," or "Israel should never have been created," or "Democrats are communists," or "January 6, 2021 should be a national holiday," or "Russia all the way," or "Affirmative action is the worst form of race discrimination," the First Amendment doesn't allow regulation.

Still, there are plenty of hard cases. Many of the hardest arise when a college or university claims that restrictions are justified by its educational mission.

In some cases, such restrictions really can be so justified. A university can direct a history professor to teach history, not physics, in a history class. That's a form of content discrimination, and it's okay.

A university can deny tenure to a law professor whose published work consists entirely of science fiction. That's also a form of content discrimination, and it's also okay. A university can tell students that they have to write papers and exams on assigned topics, not on whatever interests them.

We can go a lot further. A college or university can require students and faculty to treat each other with respect. If a student repeatedly tells other students, in class, that they are fools or idiots, discipline is almost certainly permissible. If professors repeatedly say the f word  in class, in response to student comments that they find confused or unhelpful, they can almost certainly be disciplined.

A government cannot mandate civility, considerateness, or respect. But an institution of higher education can do something like that, at least if it specifies what it has in mind, and at least if it is dealing with extreme cases.

You can even imagine cases in which viewpoint discrimination, which is ordinarily anathema, is acceptable. Again the reason is the educational mission.

Suppose a law school thinks that its faculty is dominated by people with left-of-center views, especially in constitutional law. Can the law school decide that in hiring, it will give a preference to people with right-of-center views?

The answer is almost certainly yes. A law school can decide, without offense to First Amendment principles, that it wants to ensure diversity of viewpoints, for the benefit of faculty and students alike.

But there are harder cases.

Suppose that a physics professor says that "men are just better than women in physics; the subject is much easier for them." Suppose the professor says that in class. A university might think that the professor cannot do his job if he tells his women students that they are likely to struggle with the course.

First Amendment principles do not forbid a college or university to take steps to ensure that professors are able to do their jobs. Perhaps certain kinds of comments, made in class, can be restricted, even if the restriction is a form of viewpoint discrimination. (A professor certainly could not be disciplined for saying that men and women students are equally able to do well in physics.)

That argument is weakened if a professor says something like this outside of the classroom. Professors do not lose their right to express their opinions. But there is not a lot of law on such questions. (I discuss much of what there is in Campus Free Speech .)

We know that governments can restrict the speech of their employees if the restriction is reasonably justified by reference to the government's legitimate interests as employer. If an official in a policymaking role at the State Department  says that the United States is horrible in every way, and that China and Russia are both wonderful and blameless, the First Amendment does not forbid suspension or discharge.

So if professors say something that, in the university's reasonable view, makes it hard for them to teach their students, we might have a hard question.  But the slippery slope problem here is serious. A host of imaginable views, expressed outside of class, might upset some students or make them feel in some sense excluded or demoralized. Consider these: (1) "Religion is the opiate of the people." (2) "Atheists have no morality." (3) "Liberalism is a disorder." (4) "Hunting should be a crime."

I have been focusing on speech by faculty members, but the question whether the educational mission justifies special restrictions can be asked about administrators and students as well.

Suppose that a dean of admissions makes a sexually explicit video. Or suppose that students form a society for celebration of the Confederacy or in defense of Hitler. In such cases, we can easily imagine a claim, by some or many at the institution, that the relevant speech really does compromise its educational mission.

In my view, colleges and universities do best to begin with a presumption in favor of freedom. But as they say, general propositions do not decide concrete cases. Adoption of First Amendment principles makes most cases easy—but not all of them.

Trump Endorses Federal Marijuana Reforms and Reiterates His Support for Legalizing Pot in Florida

Jacob Sullum | 9.9.2024 12:30 PM

Google Goes On Trial (Again) Today

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 9.9.2024 11:32 AM

Neck and Neck

Liz Wolfe | 9.9.2024 9:30 AM

Why You Shouldn't Fret Much Over Russian Election Interference

J.D. Tuccille | 9.9.2024 7:00 AM

Brickbat: Up in Smoke

Charles Oliver | 9.9.2024 4:00 AM

Recommended

Go ad-free with reason plus..

And get unlimited access to everything at reason.com.

Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Climate 100
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Wine Offers
• Betting Sites

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Free speech laws could have led to ‘Holocaust denial’ on campuses – Phillipson

Education secretary bridget phillipson told the commons ‘no options are off the table’ in protecting academic freedom., article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails, thanks for signing up to the breaking news email.

The previous government’s legislation on freedom of speech may have facilitated “hate speech including Holocaust denial” to spread on university campuses, the Education Secretary has said.

Bridget Phillipson announced that the Government would be pausing the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 to consider other options including its potential repeal.

The Act was introduced by the previous Tory government and sought to place a duty to “secure” and “promote the importance of” freedom of speech and could have seen universities and student unions fined for failing to do so.

I was concerned about what I had heard from Jewish groups and other minority communities about the unintended consequences that might follow from the legislation

Ms Phillipson told the Commons during education questions that the Act had been put on hold “precisely because we believe in academic freedom, and it is therefore crucial that the legal framework is workable”.

The Education Secretary added that the Government is “speaking with a range of stakeholders” and that “no options are off the table” in protecting academic freedom.

Shadow education minister Gagan Mohindra asked what alternative plans would be put in place to “protect academic freedom in the higher educational sector”.

He said: “The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 would have ensured that universities in England have the tools they need to deal with interference and threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom, wherever they originate.”

Ms Phillipson replied: “Freedom of expression and academic freedom are incredibly important.

“There are duties that the Office for Students sets out.

“Many of these principles are already enshrined in law, but I want to make sure that we get this right, and I am confident that (Mr Mohindra) would not want to be in a position where the Act might have opened up the potential for hate speech, including Holocaust denial, to be spread on campus, something that the previous minister in the last government was unable to rule out.”

Under existing legislation, higher education institutions will still have a legal duty to uphold freedom of speech.

When the new powers were introduced, the Conservatives said they would allow speakers to express views which others may disagree with as long as they did not cross a threshold into hate speech or incitement of violence.

Earlier in the session Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay Richard Holden asked for a “cast iron guarantee” that the Education Secretary had not “given consideration” to duties the Act would have imposed on universities relating to any financial relationships with China or other “authoritarian regimes”.

I take it extremely seriously that we have strong freedom of expression within our universities, that students are exposed to a range of views, some of which they might find difficult or don't agree with

Ms Phillipson gave assurance that was not the case, saying she wanted to ensure there was “good, strong, workable legislation” in the area.

She continued: “I was concerned about what I had heard from Jewish groups and other minority communities about the unintended consequences that might follow from the legislation.

“That is why I paused commencement with a view to getting this right, making sure we protect academic freedom, but also avoiding the situation where hate speech is allowed to flourish on campus.”

Labour MP for Gower Tonia Antoniazzi also raised concerns on freedom of speech on university campuses, referencing gender critical academics Jo Phoenix, Kathleen Stock and Selina Todd, all of whom have been accused of expressing transphobic views.

Ms Antoniazzi asked for reassurance that women would not be “bullied and hounded out of their successful careers in university”.

Ms Phillipson said: “I take it extremely seriously that we have strong freedom of expression within our universities, that students are exposed to a range of views, some of which they might find difficult or don’t agree with.

“That is what makes it so important to have a wide-ranging education.

“What I can also say to her is that officials will make sure we engage with a wide range of views in this important area as we look at next steps.”

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre