There are limits to everything. Life is about choices and the choices you make. You are granted free speech with the First Amendment. However, there are limitations to that freedom that are not protected. For instance with obscenity or presenting danger like yelling fire in a crowded theater. No one is truly safe from bullying it can happen on or offline. What you chose to post, tweet, share, etc on your own time will obviously be affected by others. However the school should not decide to take matter into their own hands when rather it should be the parents. Schools should not be able to limit the online speech of students because it violates the First Amendment.
Schools believe they can intervene because it becomes a distraction during the classroom. In a press release, the Association of Teachers and Lectures and Teacher Support Network asserted only 15.1% of teachers have been a victim of cyberbullying. The percentage is significantly low. Perhaps being that teachers are adults are way more mature than a student. The press also stated the perpetrator of the cyberbullying were 44.2% students.
They are old enough to know to not let what a student said to them or about them affect them. If that were the case, then our learning process would be greatly disturbed due to the teaching outcome of the affected teacher.
A student (J.S.) created a profile mocking and offending their principal online on their own time. The school wanted to suspend J.S. but could not because of Freedom of the Speech. The profile did not pose a direct threat to the principal so they could not punish the student. At school, students must follow school policies. When off-campus, students listen to their parents rules. Limiting how much kids can be online at home is not the schools responsibility, bur rather the parents. The school can make as many rules concerning the internet as they like but parents are the ones making rules for when the students are not on school grounds. Blue Mountain School District stated, “the facts simply do not support the conclusion that the school district could have reasonably forecasted a substantial disruption”.
Cyberbullying is mistaken to solely be on the internet but has been around since long before. In a statement submitted to the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on Cyberbullying, the ACLU wrote “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”. No one is truly safe from being bullied it can happen in person face to face where no one witnesses it, by phone, or even in school stalls where your name can be vandalized. There are already restrictions within each app that limit what you can and cannot do.
Although, many might disagree with me because yes the student victims would fear coming to school or might even harm themselves increasing the suicide rates. It can also enhance the already widespread problem of bullying.
Overall, schools should not be able to limit online speech because it goes against the First Amendment it should be the parents controlling internet time off of school grounds, and it could prevent kids from learning social skills. Limiting online speech would only further cause multiple issues and should not be enforced as a rule.
I thought the way you introduced the topic of online speech was very relatable because it is something we all had, as well as stating the purpose and importance of how school shouldn’t limit of us from our freedom of speech which is also our first amendment. Using social media acts as a form of expression where posts may cause conflict such as bullying but it is our right to express how we feel as long as no one is hurt doing so. You explained this very well even with adding direct examples,quotations, and statistics from the Association of Teachers and Lectures and Teacher Support Network. I think will create an even stronger argument for why online freedom of speech should exist is, adding the viewpoints of the opposing side and as to why they are wrong. Otherwise very well written and I agreed with much of what you had to say.
I am agree with your post about how parents should take action on their kids social life and not have the school take control of it because although it may cause a distraction at school there’s only so much a school can do and most of the time when schools get involved it causes a bigger problem for the student . One sentence you wrote that stands out for me is ,”The school can make as many rules concerning the internet as they like but parents are the ones making rules for when the students are not on school grounds.” I think this is a good statement because some children are more afraid of their parents than a school teacher or principal . They will take their parents more serious because there are actual consequences due to the fact that they live with them .
Thanks for writing . I look forward to seeing what you write next because you make valid points . Also because you see the sides to both sides and then make a decision .
I am Interested with your post, “Should Schools be Allowed to Limit Students Online Speech?” because even though you think that schools should not limit students online speech you also know that people will disagree. I also like how in the beginning of your post you don’t just get to the point of you thesis statement instead you lead into in.
One sentence that stood out to me is, “The school can make as many rules concerning the internet as they like but parents are the ones making rules for when the students are not on school grounds.” I agree with this sentence but also I think that even if parents are the ones making the rules out of school grounds, students will break them if it’s their own parents making the rules.
Thanks for your writing. I look forward to seeing what you right next, because you seem to explain really well what the sources are saying in your own words. Also even if the sources would be for agreeing that schools should be allowed to limit students speech you made it work so that they would be agreeing with you argument.