Response
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s idea when he addresses the concept of freedom of speech seeks to limit the uncontrolled use of speech in various settings. The clear and present danger test that was carried to determine the constitutional protection of speech and found that the communicator’s speech can be dangerous if its intended results are unacceptable or unlawful in a state. At this position, freedom of speech should be restricted.
Consider the school setting where each student has own rights that protects them in the school and out of school setting. The schools also pass laws such as restriction of drugs in school, and breaking the law may lead to punishment. According to Jeremy Bethany, actions of punishing the student would be morally right if they promote the pleasure and happiness of the person. If the punishment inflicts fear, pain, and unhappiness, then it’s immoral and inappropriate.
In contrast, Justice Holmes and Chief Justice Earl Warren show that the court considered that the political speech was protected unless it incited imminent lawless action in the first amendment. The school setting should provide an environment that is friendly for learning, and that promotes equality and esteem of the learners.
A question may arise that, can an act of punishing a student, maybe they are reported to have drugs, and the security personnel rushes to check in the student’s bags and harass the student to speak the truth result to unhappiness and pain? Certainly yes! The Smith Act (1940) limited free speech for the communists and socialists and was also used for security of the ruling the government. If the intentions that a free speech aims at achieving are clear and peaceful, then there should be no limitation. If the punishment inflicts pain and unhappiness, it should be withdrawn as it would not assist the school institution in meeting its objectives. The privacy of a student is paramount for ensuring active learning for the student.
