Free speech, which falls under the First Amendment in the United States Constitution, is arguably the most important right and foundation of America. The U.S. takes pride in being ‘the land of the free.’ Undoubtedly, in the past century, free speech has been a platform for people to express their opinions and beliefs without fear of retaliation from the government. Free speech was a big propeller for major social and political movements, including the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage. In recent years, free speech has continued to take form through protests and movements, notable ones including the protests on ICE raids.
Despite the historic power free speech has given to those in the U.S., nowadays many Americans believe that free speech is being restricted and threatened. 65% of Americans feel that their freedom of speech is threatened, according to Freedom Forum. Lately, the image of free speech has become tainted, leading us to question if our First Amendment rights are still being protected to the fullest extent.
A recent example of this can be seen in the assassination of conservative debater Charlie Kirk. Although Kirk was widely known for having outrageous far-right opinions, his assassination showed millions of people that it is okay to commit unacceptable acts to silence others with different opinions. These circumstances show how our idea of freedom of speech is only applicable when following the imaginary guidelines set by higher authorities.
While these higher authorities are supposed to protect our freedoms, they typically are the ones complicit in limiting them. Recently, during an interview on Nov. 20, President Trump berated a journalist for asking about the Epstein files, saying, “quiet, piggy,” and calling the journalist “a terrible person” and “insubordinate.” This demeaning language and dismissal illustrate how those in power can shut down uncomfortable speech, revealing how limited our freedom of speech is.
However, free speech is not just tied to the government and national politics, but shows up in our everyday environment, especially in schools. While protesting is a constitutional right, many colleges have shut down students protesting for Palestine on their campuses. The most notable ones being New York University, Columbia University and University of Washington. Instances such as these teach students that their speech is only tolerated when it does not disrupt the image of the institution. In high schools, book bans have become prevalent, sending a message that certain ideas are too controversial to even read. It is hard to claim we have free speech when youth are taught early on that our speech is only allowed when it fits the comfort of those in power.
An outlet for students to spread their beliefs and thoughts — controversial or not — is by partaking in their journalism class or writing in their school’s newspaper. In California, student journalists from differing levels of education have laws that protect their freedom of press, according to the Student Press Law Center. Despite this, student journalists are not exempt from having violations of their freedom of speech and press. When students are discussing topics that are deemed controversial, it is possible for violations of their First Amendment to occur. These violations come in different forms — directly and indirectly. Direct violations include the administration getting involved with what a student is writing about. This does not include writing that contains slander, obscene material or disruption to the school. One of many examples was in February 2024, when Mountain View High School journalism students were pressured by their principal to “change an investigative piece and write about the school in a ‘positive light,’” according to the Journalism Education Association of Northern California.
While direct violations instantly censor a student’s writing, indirect violations often discourage journalists from writing about particular topics, without instant censorship. A common form of this is peer pressure. Oftentimes in high school, peer pressure can persuade students to stray away from discussing topics they believe they will face backlash for. Both of these violations result in boundaries being put on what students can talk and write about. This limits their ability to fully practice their freedom of speech and press, and instead instills a fear in them due to the possible consequences that they might face either from administrators or peers. Restrictions on youths’ First Amendment rights foster a generation that is scared to speak up.
While free speech remains a core principle of America, its limits are becoming harder to ignore. From politics to our school systems, it is clear that our “freedom” often depends on who is speaking. Until we can address these controversies, true free speech will be more of an ideal than a reality.
