BY A LOS ALAMOS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT

Editor’s note: The following is one of a series of Op-Eds written by students in Adam Davis’s English 9 and 10 class at Los Alamos High School on free speech in schools. Some students have chosen to remain anonymous.

I believe in freedom of speech for children. It can be argued that children should be careful with what they say as it can put them in harm’s way with others or a community. But this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it at all cause I want to say my thoughts sometimes and I shouldn’t be in prison under school policy to not do so. This has been the case in the past like one case in particular the Nuxoll vs the Indian Prairie School District where a girl wore a shirt saying “Be Happy Not Gay” on “The Day of Truth” which is a day right after the pride day “The Day of Silence” and the school had gotten upset with her wearing it and it went as far as going into court to deal with the situation.

This all started when the 15th annual “Day of Silence” a national event had arrived it was made to go against anti-LGBT name calling ,bullying, and harassment. However most did not like this day so the “Day of Truth” was made as a direct response to the Day of Silence and two students in particular were the ones who were about to make history. The names of these two students were Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll who on the Day of Truth wore a shirt with the phrase “Be Happy, Not Gay” which the school had told Zamecnik that the shirt had violated the school policy. The next year Zamecnik along with Nuxoll had wanted to wear the shirt to school again on the Day of Truth but the school instead of punishing them gave them alternatives which included changing the slogan to “Be Happy, Be Straight”. Now in my opinion this was a better saying than “Be Happy, Not Gay” but it still is similar to it but in the eyes of the two students this was not the case.

The students wanting to celebrate the Day of Truth had gotten the people who made the Day of Truth involved and there were the ADF. After the two new shirts for the students to wear instead went against what the ADF had in mind for the day and the new shirt was “The Truth Cannot Be Silenced”. The ADF hearing this joined with the students and filed a lawsuit against the school’s officials and their actions. The court in 2007 had sided with the school but in 2008 the 7th Circuit overturned the first ruling and said the school had not shown that the t-shirt’s slogan “Be Happy, Not Gay” had caused any “substantial disruption”. In my opinion I do agree with the 7th Circuit because the shirts did not cause any “substantial disruption” and the shirts were someone expressing themselves which is what is similar to those who are expressing their identity or gender. I am not siding with either side as I do not want trouble but the court ruled that schools which are funded by the government are government buildings and therefore the freedom to speech is protected so it all comes down to who really has control but also that neither side is in the right or wrong.

The 7th Circuit had sent the case back down to a lower court and followed the instructions to enter a preliminary injunction allowing the t-shirts to be worn. The district will have to make some precautions of limits for the balance of what can be said against sexual orientation and their plan is to make a balance in which students are not distracted from their debates over issues of the person’s identity. The judge had also told the students they would be paid $25 in damages which issued a permanent injunction allowing any student to show the slogan on clothing or “personal items’. I believe that displaying or showing or expressing yourself should be allowed to all but not to cause any damage either since there should be some limits to things.

The first limit would have to be expressing/promoting illegal activities, what I mean by this is that promoting violence, drugs, etc. should not be allowed due to it causing substantial harm as it can cause others to feel disturbed by whatever is being shown. The second thing is something that is directly targeting someone, what i mean by this is you can’t have anything that shows or is displaying hatred against someone directly which could lead to other problems which can become serious problems including symptoms of anxiety, anger, and even depression and all can lead to causing some more serious than how it started.

The final thing is targeting a certain group, thing, person, or anything that is important to some people. What I mean by this is you can’t go around wearing a shirt depicting what Muhammed the Muslim prophet looks like as it goes against Islam and can lead to serious problems and consequences or you can’t go around wearing controversial stuff whether it is about a national event, a tragedy, a sacred being/place/object, or anything that can make people very upset for instance I cannot go around wearing a shirt saying that 9/11 was justified as it would make many very upset even if it is protected by the first amendment in school and by the government people around you can do stuff to you.

I think freedom of speech should be allowed for children. But with some limits. What I mean by this is some things or sayings can go to far depending on what I call the “Line of Balance” which is if it is straight going left or right then there is nothing wrong but if it turns more to the left downward becoming a curved line than it can go a little bad but not too bad. But if both sides are curving downwards into a frown then it is bad/controversial, and if it is making a full circle going down then it has become a serious problem. There is some good things to this however if the line curves up then it is okay saying your thoughts about something in a formal and safe place and if both sides curve up into a smile then it is good and not controversial what can fall in this area is being polite such as saying “good job” or giving compliments and if it curves into a circle up top then it means no one will get upset at you for what you say for instance the word “hello” is something no one will get mad at you for which also works for “thank you”. Overall there are some limits in my opinion to what should be allowed to be said in school but that doesn’t mean to get rid of it for good.

Works cited; the only work I used for this was the article the t-shirt wars by Dana Rudolph and published by Keen News Service April 14, 2011 and talks about three different stories involving the freedom of speech being used or taken away. The one I chose was Nuxoll vs Indian Prairie school district talking about two students getting in trouble for wearing shirts that go against the tradition of the Day of Silence but the shirts were worn on the day right after on the Day of Truth. One point in the article by a judge by the name of Richard Posner says the following, “A school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality” and “People in our society do have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life”.