Essay on Censorship in Schools

Another example is regarding the freedom of assembly and petition. The author explains how as this part of the amendment has been challenged, its meaning has gained influence but also ensured that Americans are still free to go about their normal business and lives. The author’s reasoning and elaboration upon ideas contribute to the overall strength of the argument and relevance of the evidence

The great American patriot Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous “Day of Affirmation Address” that the first and most critical element of “individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate

Censorship in schools may have pros and cons, but most feel that there are mostly

The public has stated various times that humankind is entitled to various things, one of which is liberties. Everyman is entitled to liberties in the British kingdom and even in the United States, this is different because in the olden days people didn’t have liberties. This is stated by saying that no man shall have “its liberties impaired”. This states that in society your liberties shall not be taken away. It relates to the topic by demonstrating how our society was changed to today with

In John Stuart Mill’s profound work On Liberty, he preaches against the conformity of the nations and outwardly encourages and restlessly defends voice of the individual. The philosopher expresses the importance of individuality by warning against forces such as the government and other citizens silencing their opinion. Though Mill gives due recognition to virtues such as free speech, liberty, and individualism, he also rightly places limitations on our freedoms to ensure that they do not infringe upon the ones of those around us. In essence, I believe that Mill’s insightfully provides a logical answer to society on how to live and how to allow others to live; freely unless harm will ensue. By Mill 's statement that, “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” one can gain insights into the assumptions his argument is grounded upon, his justification for these assumptions, the limitations that should rightly be placed on free speech, and my overall opinion on Mill’s argument on free speech.

What would you do if you went to your child's school and saw that they were looking at inappropriate material on the internet? Would you react the same way if they were in a public library? Who decides what is okay for your children to view? Who decides where they can view it? What can you do about them being able to view these things? Are there any laws that can prevent this from happening? What are some schools and libraries doing to help prevent children form looking at such material? These are all issues that will be discussed in the next few paragraphs, along with my opinions on the matter.

Furthermore, censors can be parents, teachers, administrators, or community members (Kelsey). Boyd and Bailey shared, “Although parents and guardians have the right to demand that their child will not read a particular book or view a specific film, no one parent or guardian has the right to demand that an entire classroom, school, or district should not read a particular book or view a film.” On the contrary, there are people who are against censorship, such as the School Library Media Specialists. The SLMSs recognize that adolescents cannot be irreparably harmed by the words and concepts of books (Kelsey). Charlene C. Cain, from Librarians and Censorship: The Ethical Imperative, notes that “some censors have low tolerance for diversity, ambiguity,

The cost to the individual in terms of injury or denial of liberty may not outweigh the need of the public to control the individual’s actions. The constitutional need to control must overshadow the cost to the subject being controlled. The amount of force allowed to create and maintain control must be reasonable.

Freedom of speech and the liberty to uphold one’s expression has long been the subject of many debates. It has taken centuries if not years for mankind to come to a point where many can easily voice their opinions without having to ponder over the consequences. But one should always know where to draw the line. Freedom of expression also needs to have its limits. Two of the masterminds who put forth their work on liberty and freedom of speech were John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. The concepts penned by Rousseau contradict those that were constructed by Mil; while the former focused on the functioning of the society as a whole, the latter advocated the rights of the individual to his freedom.

In the political work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill forms an argument in support of the freedom of speech and explains in detail why silencing an opinion is wrong. These arguments are important because they are an important foundation to our constitution and most modern democracies. In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke explains his views on political philosophy but never explicitly states a clear view on free speech. In this essay I will examine how Locke’s political principles would lead him to agree or disagree with Mill’s strong defense of free speech.

Censorship cases often bring about debates over students’ first amendment rights. Students’ first amendment rights are important to preserve so that students can not be excluded from meaningful works or literature. It is understandable for the government to design educational plans as a way to get its voice into classrooms, but “the truth-promoting function of the First Amendment provides no reason, however, to question the right of students to explore a variety of ideas and perspectives, and to form and express ideas of their own” (Brown, 1994, p. 30). Schools already place a restriction on religious material or material addressing current political controversy (Brown, 1994).

“That principle, that the sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

The issue of free speech has plagued school systems ever since public schools have been operating in the United States. Students and administration have gone head-to-head on many occasions as to whether or not the administration can censor or discipline students with issues regarding the topic. Teachers and students have varying degrees of free speech as delegated through court rulings throughout the history of the United States of America. Even today, commonly students push the boundaries of free speech, challenging schools around the country. What rights do students and teachers have? How have rights and liberties evolved over the years? These questions plague many citizens and the answers are too often overlooked, yet a middle ground must

Free speech, that is speech free from regulation from an authoritative figure, is so ingrained in American culture that it is easy to forget that there is a debate over the concept. Today, the idea of government censorship is abhorred by Americans and equated to authoritarian regimes. It is forgotten that Plato suggested such an idea; to only allow poetry with “good” teachings to ensure a good society, one free from teachings that normalize deviant behavior. The writers of the American Constitution, however, followed the logic of John Stuart Mill. Mill, utilizing the Utilitarian theory, demands that speech be free from suppression on the grounds that it not only benefits individuals, but all people, including current and future generations.

In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill applies his philosophical system of utilitarianism to the government and argues that a government's primary goal should be protecting its citizens' individual liberty. Mill also argues that the only time coercion is acceptable is when a person’s behavior harms individuals (Mill, 617). Otherwise, society should treat diversity with complete respect Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are three things that each American is entitled to. In the United States Constitution, the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights, one of them being freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is defined as the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without the interference of government retaliation, censorship, or societal sanction. In this paper, I argue that every citizen is entitled to freedom of speech where there are limitations with the help of The Harm Principle.