Did you know? The Court repeated its recognition of an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive language.
Takeaways

Given the speed with which information reaches us, and the variety of ways we receive it, the debate has hardened into  sharply polarized focus. On one side of the issue are those that believe anything is fair game, no matter who it hurts or what impact it may have on our world as a whole. From papparazzi chasing down celebrities and disrupting their rights to privacy, to those in the media who routinely leak sensitive information, they all have the commonly held belief that there should be no restraint on the right to free speech.

The other side of the debate insists there are and should be limits on what people print, or broadcast, when it directly impinges on national security, abrogates a citizens basic rights to privacy, creates a climate of hate and violence, or demeans and stereotypes people according to race, gender or creed. The Supreme Court has ruled on many cases concerning alleged violations of the First Amendment, coming down just as frequently on the side of those seeking redress for infringements, as they did on those seeking redress from misuse of the First Amendment.

As an example, in 1969, the Supreme Court heard the case of Tinker vs Des Moines.

"Several students and parents in Des Moines organized a protest of the Vietnam war. Students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest. When the school found out they warned all the students and parents that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended. The Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended. Mr and Mrs. Tinker filed suit claiming that the school violated the children's right to freedom of speech and expression. The school claimed that the armbands were disruptive.

The court ruled against the school district saying that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as "symbolic speech."

Earlier, in 1986, the Court heard the case Bethel School District vs Fraser.

"Matthew Fraser, a high school student in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech was made during school hours as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. The voluntary assembly was attended by about 600 students, many of whom were 14-year-olds. Throughout the speech, the student deliberately referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate and explicit sexual metaphor. The reactions of the students varied from enthusiastic hooting and yelling to embarrassment and bewilderment. Before the speech, the student had discussed it with several teachers, and two teachers told him they thought it was not appropriate. The student was suspended for three days for having violated the school's "disruptive conduct" rule, which prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the school board acted entirely within its permissible authority in punishing Fraser for "his offensively lewd and indecent speech." This was not a situation where Fraser was sanctioned for expressing a political viewpoint as in the Tinker "armband" case; the sexual innuendo was incidental to the merits of the candidate who was being nominated. "It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse . . . Schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order."

The Court repeated its recognition of an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language. Even in a heated political discourse among adults, the Court emphasized the need for consideration for the personal sensibilities of the audience. "A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students." The Court also stated that the school regulation and the negative reactions of two teachers gave Fraser sufficient notice that his speech might result in his suspension." (Hardin)

One little understood aspect of freedom of speech is media violence and its impact on children. Yet this issue permeates every aspect of our dealings with children, and parental rights as a whole. Across this nation there have been court cases concerning homicides allegedly instigated by media glorification of brutality, and hate crimes committed by children who have become desensitized to the reality of consequences for their behavior.

"Many commentators worry that media violence has become embedded in the cultural environment; that, in some sense, it's part of the "psychic air" that children and young people constantly breathe. That environment of violence, profanity, crudeness, and meanness may erode civility in society by demeaning and displacing positive social values."

Researchers like David Buckingham in the U.K. and Henry Jenkins in the U.S. add another dimension to the debate. They argue that rather than focusing on what media do to people, we should focus on what people do with media.

As Jenkins writes, media images "are not simple chemical agents like carcinogens that produce predictable results upon those who consume them. They are complex bundles of often contradictory meanings that can yield an enormous range of different responses from the people who consume them." ibid-Media Violence Debate

In a free and democratic society, freedom of speech is absolutely essential to the free sharing of ideas and information. It is one of the distinguishing differences between democracy and repression. But it carries a moral and ethical obligation to exercise judgment in its usage. As an example, anti-war rhetoric, balanced by opposing viewpoints is healthy and often allows for great personal growth. Carried too far, as in the case of Michael Moore, Cyndi Sheehan and the N.Y.Times carefully placed leaks of sensitive information, it creates opportunities our enemies can use to hurt us further.

The benchmark for this perhaps should be "first do no harm", which is part of the physicians oath of conduct. If, in the exercising of freedom of speech, someone dies, a reputation is ruined, a job is lost or a nation is placed in peril , than freedom of speech has been carried too far.