Schools should not be allowed to limit Students’ Online Speech because it is unfair to those who do not cyberbully or harm others online, it would violate the first amendment free speech rights, and students have been exposed to the things that are online before and would be pointless to limit.
In Document B, it shows a survey that was used to ask teachers in Britain if they have been cyberbullied. This cannot be used as a reason to limit students’ speech because there is only fifteen percent of teachers who have been exposed to cyberbullying. And, to top it off, more than twenty-five percent of those who were cyberbullied said that it was an adult. There was forty-four percent that were students, but there is thirty-eight percent of the teachers cyberbullied that did not care at all. This supports that schools should not limit students’ speech because there are also teachers involved who did the bullying and some teachers did not care when they were bullied. Why do they imply that only student speech should be limited?
In Document D, it speaks about a student posting a picture of a teacher online without giving the name or any sort of information about them, only mean comments. This supports that schools should not limit students’ speech because it was done outside of school and the student was simply stating their opinions, even if it was offensive. For example, the text states, “…the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for creating the profile” (Par. 3). This proves that they should not limit speech because it would be violating their first amendment rights to free speech. I believe that it was childish of the teacher, as well, since they took it to the school and got the student suspended for it. One student posted about the teacher, didn’t give information about them, and didn’t threaten the school or teacher in any ways. But they still want to limit all the students’ speech for it. This cannot be used to limit students’ speech.
In Document F, it shows a statement that was submitted to the Washington Legislative Office that spoke about not limiting students’ access or speech because it would be pointless. This cannot be used to support limiting students’ speech because the students have been exposed to those type of things before. For example, the statement says, “We believe that any restriction specifically aimed at [limiting] the speech rights of [people under the age of 18] in the new electronic forum is a step in the wrong direction…” (Par. 3). This proves that limiting the speech of students would be wrong. Another example in the text is “The [occurrence] of ‘cyberbullying’ has also received attention recently and in a rush to address this problem, lawmakers have forgotten that bullying has been around since long before the internet” (Par. 1). This also proves that limiting students’ speech would be wrong because the students are still being bullied outside of the internet itself.
Ultimately, because it would be unfair to those who do not cyberbully or harm others online, it would violate the first amendment free speech rights, and students have been exposed to the things that are online before and would be pointless to limit; schools should not limit students’ speech.