Freedom of speech is privilege
By CHELSEA ARNHOLD
MHS student reporter
What is freedom of speech? What does it give us a right to do and not to do?
The first amendment of the United States Constitution states: "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."
What? Was that in Chinese? What does it mean to "abridge" the freedom of speech? Where is that line drawn? Are there limitations? Does one person's freedom of speech override someone else's rights and privileges?
New York's Bethlehem Central School approved a new rule forbidding high school coaches from coaching outside their school. The rule was intended to keep high school teams from acquiring any advantage from playing together in the off season. Bethlehem baseball coach Jesse Braverman said this rule violated his right to freedom of speech and association. U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy denied Braverman's motion for a preliminary injunction because he said, "The Constitution does not recognize a generalized right of social association." Isn't that like saying that a coach of a team can't even talk to a member of his/her team without being worried about violating a rule?
Here in Marion a coach couldn't stop and visit with an athlete while he was practicing during the off season. He would be restricted by the Kansas State High School Activities Association.
From another viewpoint, what if one's statements are a threat to bodily harm? Charles Carithers was suspended from school because he wrote a story for English about a high school student athlete who killed his teacher with a chain saw.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts's executive director, John Roberts, tried to overturn the punishment by saying, "If the English teacher cannot handle expressive writing, then such assignments should not be made, and better yet, perhaps the teacher should seek another line of work."
The enactment of "hate-crimes" amendments can have far reaching effects on an individual's freedom of speech. Hate-crimes have many serious philosophical and moral problems. The hate-crime legislation has the opportunity to punish one criminal more severely than another, even if the crimes were the same. That is like saying that killing a black man is more serious than killing a white man.
Hate-crime laws include "sexual orientation." If a member of a church were charged with a hate-crime, his pastor also could be charged with "conspiracy" or the subject of a civil lawsuit if he had preached against homosexuality. Even the thought of facing such a lawsuit is enough to intimidate a pastor, in chilling his right to "freedom of speech."
Unlike race or national origin, sexual orientation is a changeable characteristic. It is not based on appearance or place of birth, but on actions. By presenting hate-crime laws, the state officially puts homosexuals in the same class as race and national origin.
Is it wrong for a coach to advise team players in the off season? To write a horrible paper that is a threat to one's bodily harm? To prosecute a pastor because a member from his congregation spoke out about something he espoused?
The answers to these questions are in the opinion of the individual and the American system of legislation and courts. The beauty of the American system is our right to speak out. It's our duty to stay informed and speak out, or, vote. Remember, it's your country too.
