Schools should only be allowed to limit a students free speech on certain instance, not all of them.
Limiting a students free speech is actually a violation their first amendment right. In limiting the free speech it already starts to disregard the right that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrig the freedom off…” . This shows how in the case of J.S. V. Blue Mountain school district, J.S. right was violated when she received a 10 day suspension for making a profile that didn’t target her principle by name. The situation that took place was off school campus and it was on a website she wouldn’t be able to access in school. This shows that her they didn’t have to suspend her for such a minor incident if it didn’t cause anyone any distress, they could have just given her detention.
In other instances though where a student is cause a lot of pain or harassment speech should be limited. In a study conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center, we can see data that shows how many students have been bullied and have been the bully. We see that almost 22 percent of people asked have cyber bullied others, we then also see in a Joint press release, from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and Teacher Support Network that they are also targets for students to bully. It gives us evidence that when a teacher is a target they often lose confidence and their teaching productivity starts to decrease. In situations like this a students free speech should be limited because they are starting to affect a person’s mental health taking the whole situation too far.
Furthermore research lead me to a letter written to school administration, US department of Education Office for Civil Rights. It states that harassment does not have to intend harm, and that “ A school is responsible for addressing harassment incidents about which it knows…”. In a statement submitted to the congressional subcommittee Hearing on Cyber Bullying, the ACLU wrote that bullying has been around long before the internet and that limiting free speech would be a step in the wrong direction. Although this isnt always the case it does make a valid point that limiting someone’s free speech when it doesn’t need to be actually takes us away from the roots that were created by congress.
I would like to conclude that limiting free speech can actually be a rather good thing if the person is starting to take advantage or abuse that right.