Schools Should Not Restrain Student Expression In Fahrenheit 451 By Ray Bradbury

Student's rights about free speech and expression shouldn't be limited outside of school.It also shouldn't be limited on social media either just because that's whats on their mind.It should only limit when your're inside of school just so it can keep the peaceful environment.From the center of Public Education "student's should be required to be in a peaceful environment so it can thrive" so if we limit the freedom of speech during school is taking place then the peaceful environment should stay.This should also limit negative clothing or expressions during school but when they're outside of school these actions can take place.

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).

The idea of free speech is nearly universally accepted in the modern world. Places where free speech is limited are almost never a truly positive society. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, free speech is changed by removing mediums to express ideas and by threatening punishments for speaking out. Bradbury warns that the consequences of these alterations are a close-minded approach to life and an addiction to mindless entertainment.

Juan Ramon Jimenez once said, “If they give you ruled paper, write the other way”. This quote shows the challenge of authority, like Montag and his society. Just like challenging the normal, or doing the opposite of what seems to be right by “writing the other way” on a lined piece of paper, Montag chooses to challenge authority by reading, remembering, and comprehending books, instead of burning them. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury takes place in a dystopian society in the twenty-fourth century and the main character is Guy Montag. He is a fireman whose job is to burn books and start fires instead of putting them out. Moreover, he lives in a society which just listens to government propaganda and follows whatever they are told; the citizens do not think deeply about aspects in life but rather focus on mind-numbing activities, that does not take any deep thought process. Books are banned but Montag takes the risk to start to read books, hoping they will bring him happiness in the dark world he lives in. In his journey he has three mentors who help him, Clarisse, Faber, and Granger. The protagonist, Guy Montag, changes as a result of the conflict within his dystopian society and this change connects to the novel’s theme of government censorship over its citizens.

Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (U.S. Constitution)." Throughout the ages, censorship has shown up in various forms ranging from printed works to television and the Internet. It can have the positive effect of protecting children from things they are too immature to view, but it can also have negative effects. Censorship may even suppress new and different ideas, keeping them from being made public. It may also set limitations, which stifle the creativity of authors and prevent them from thoroughly expressing their ideas. However it states the government should not censor the people of this country. In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury the people in the town of Phoenix were

The First Amendment grants the freedom of speech for all United States citizens. Envision not possessing this right, but also not being able to think freely. If a future filled with no individual expression and everyone and everything looking the same came to mind, you were close, but not quite there. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is about a war ridden society that restricts the freedom of thought through the practice of banning and burning books. An analysis of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 displays change is needed because it opens one’s eyes which is illustrated by his use of character interaction, detailed events, and revealing the character’s thoughts.

Imagine your friend from another school telling you about one of her favorite books, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. She urges you to read it, but when you go to your school library, it has been pulled from the shelves! Turns out, your hypothetical school has been banning books left and right, just because parents object. While some say that objections to most challenged books are valid, school administrators should not be allowed to ban books because it infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech, may waste the ability to teach children, and could interfere with social development of lesbian and gay youth.

The subject of student rights has caused a lot of confusion and anger for decades now. There are two different sides that everyone seems to fall into. Some people want the constitutional rights of students to be fully protected within the school. The other side believes that, as a public institution, schools should regulate what is said or done by students to protect everyone involved. This is where it gets confusing, because it is hard to draw the line between what is allowed or not. The three most interesting topics that I chose to cover are a student’s right to free speech, religion within the school and student privacy.

Humanity often takes for granted the education we receive and don’t realize its effects on us. We fail to see that proper education reduces one’s gullibility, as those who receive training in critical thinking are less easily manipulated. In the novella Animal Farm by George Orwell, fascist rulers take advantage of the illiterate animals on the Manor Farm because they were oblivious to what was happening to them. Meanwhile, in the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, citizens of a dystopian society have their access to education withheld from them, leaving them unable to think for themselves or properly assess their lives. In both works of literature, the author sees the importance of education being that illiteracy will leave one vulnerable to being manipulated due to their inability to thoroughly interpret and analyze situations with proper insight. In other words, being apathetic towards one’s education will only set them up for doom.

Additionally, many required classes for a degree that stretch the mind of each student past its previous level will be ineffective if freedom of speech is taken. For example, most degrees include a mandatory ethics class, one that challenges their typical viewpoints and forces them to observe the world from the other side. Debates in this class must be free to contemplate all angles and reasoning in order for them to truly hold influence and spark the minds of its participants. The events of these friendly debates would be impossible in a university that controls the speech of its students. Or what about those in classes studying government? Students would learn about laws and the Constitution only to know that their first amendment rights are being disregarded. What about those studying the Holocaust or African American history? Their textbooks would be moderated, and any who wanted to look further into his or her topic could be punished unrightfully like Keith John Sampson was for his novel. The nation’s universities must be fully aware of the dilemmas that eliminating the freedom of speech would cause.

Censorship is a concept that only belongs in communist countries, dystopian novels, and nightmares. The United States of America was founded out of the oppression of King George III as a nation of freedom. Would the Founding Fathers approve of campus censorship? Ben Franklin said, “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.” When censorship begins to interfere with an American’s daily life, especially his education, something is clearly amiss. The freedom of speech, promised by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is an essential characteristic of American society, and is vital to both liberal education and a free society.

Take the standpoint of a student, student freedom is an element of Academic Freedom, but it doesn't just express specifically to its freedom in the classroom. It encourages students to discuss, express, and evaluate on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards. It is questionable whether or not students should act on demands. Leadership matters, they have to face emotionally evocative symbolic and narrative disputes and take on opposing views. Today's student movements is not alleged intolerance or immaturity." Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study

Firstly, freedom of speech should have limits because it increases education time. For example, students can lose up to 38 days a year due to disruptions in class and about 1 hour per day (Al.com). Teenagers report to school to get an education and learn for the future, they do not show up at school to talk to everyone the entire day. Due of talking, they lose class time and they do not get much done. If freedom of speech is limited students will be able to learn more. Also if another peer is wearing something that is very distracting, this will disrupt the class. For example, the Tinker v.s Des Moines Independent Community School District case was about students wearing armbands to support the Vietnam War. The appearance of the armband distracted their peers from their work. The school was able to discipline the students wearing the bands . (“Tinker v.

The first bell rings. Students walk into class. During class, the teacher asks questions to the students, yet no students raise their hand to answer it. This is like what happens to students when it comes to their freedom of expression. Students, like these in the classroom, are constricted in the way they express themselves. Students are not allowed to have their freedom of expression in schools, but that is not how it should be. Students should be able to express themselves without limits because it is a right in the First Amendment, it brings people together, and it gives students a voice.