Free Speech Musings

          The First Amendment and the extent to which it protects free speech has become increasingly relevant since the start of the Israel-Palestine war. Phrases like “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” and “Between the Sea and Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” are gaining momentum at American universities, sparking protest movements and even violence. Several prestigious universities across the country are under scrutiny because of the activities taking place on their campuses, and leaders of academic institutions are under extreme criticism and pressure due to their ambiguous stances on the morality of their students’ use of such phrases.

          This raises the crucial question of what the first amendment actually justifies. While the First Amendment outlines clear legal boundaries for free speech, which act as a baseline for the entire country, colleges should facilitate a safe and accepting environment for discussion, and we should set stricter moral boundaries on our speech to support various communities.

          According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  However, the First Amendment has exceptions to the speech it protects: “obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct.” Throughout the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example, many of the comments from both sides encroached on the limits of free speech and even amounted to physical attacks—online threats at Cornell University; physical engagement at the University of Massachusetts; a hit-and-run at Stanford. Without question, speech and actions that fall outside of the First Amendment cannot be permitted.

          Conversely, speech that does land within the scope of the First Amendment, regardless of which side it favors, should be permitted and even encouraged. These different and often clashing opinions allow our country to remain free and diverse.  Restricting free expression throttles the formation of different viewpoints and the chance for people to form nuanced opinions; most of all, it fuels even more resentment and hatred by stifling earnest discussion. Encouraging free speech, then, not only prompts more refined and well-informed opinions, but can also foster an atmosphere of understanding and respect.

          What should free speech look like on college campuses in particular, instead of America as a whole? Colleges represent one of the last transitions from childhood to adulthood, and some argue that they should thus reflect the “real world” that they will graduate students into. However, higher education is just a stage in this transition, and colleges serve as places for students to actively learn, grow, and make mistakes. Colleges should have stricter regulations about acceptable speech in place in order to ensure that each individual—regardless of their background and beliefs—feels safe in their own community while also learning to voice ideas respectfully. Suppression and regulation are fundamentally different: while the former often breeds homogenous views, escalates tensions, and even fosters fear, the latter merely muffles hateful calls and ensures a level of peace. It’s completely possible to form and voice polarizing views while maintaining a climate of respect and understanding. 

          For instance, Lawrenceville’s diverse student body brings a range of different beliefs and values to discussions. Recognizing the importance of such discussions, the School encourages students to voice their opinions and contribute to discussions through platforms like this publication. While The Lawrence reflects the contrasting viewpoints of students, the majority of the student body remains relatively respectful, in large part because we recognize and respect the diversity of our world. This acknowledgment enables us to form and communicate our ideas while also appreciating and accepting other views. Indeed, a diversity of perspectives prompts more understanding and respect, and the suppression of those perspectives intensifies resentment.

          On a final note, the law does not prohibit every form of harmful speech, even many extreme and terrifying ones. Yet, excessively violent as well as absolutely unfiltered speech provoke hatred and disunity within the public. This strife is the opposite of what the world needs, in times of peace and especially in times like these. While free speech is a fundamental and unique part of our country, and while the law may not in fact filter many hateful statements, we should make the effort to reflect on our words before we say them. Our generation is responsible for the future of our world, and we have the power to shape it as we desire. We need to contribute varying ideas and solutions to conflicts like the Israel-Palestine war, but at the same time, we carry the responsibility of making our world tolerant of everyone.