What do you think is more important: safety or freedom of speech?
Posted on November 28th, 2009 by admin
I am writing a paper on the Columbine High School shootings and I have to decide which is more important, freedom of speech or safety?
Any opinions are greatly appreciated!
My paper is due tomorrow and I still don’t know which one I’d choose!
:/
Thanks!
I understand your dilemma, I don’t think you can choose. We must have a fair balance between the two ideals in our society. Common sense should be the rule, but people are always going to squawk when they perceive an infringement on their privacy.
At Columbine, however, freedoms are allowed to be limited because the high school situation is not an open democracy. To attend a public high school you are giving up your personal rights to some degree to accept the limitations of the school rules. Taking away a student’s perceived right is the obligation of the school when it comes to safety.
A locker is not a private residence which precludes investigation by the school administration. The administration should fairly follow preset guidelines on such procedures. But they hold the keys as to whether or not to hold regular locker inspections.
And any parent should have some idea what is in their child’s room. If I had seen unexplained locks in my kid’s room, I would demand an accounting. Computers, also, for underage teens should be an open book to their parents. That would end some of the nonsense that is on the internet. Parents are responsible for their child’s actions and can even be prosecuted for teen’s abuses.
Good luck with your paper.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
flip a coin, that’s what I used to do..
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
there is an old quote about this very point
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for peace, deserve neither"
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
it is best to never try and choose between them but come up with a solution that involves both….for freedom is the best action to provide safety.
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Columbine shootings aren’t protected by the first amendment so I would question the IQ of who told you one would have to chose between freedom of speech or school shootings…but to quote our forefathers, ben franklin to be exact
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Your ability to freely speak and assemble is your safety.. and for the paper to report what the truth is ( except now they are all Obama praiseologists) and report it, the proverbial whistle blower. take away your ability to say whats on your mind and you have effectively eradicated your safety.
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I understand your dilemma, I don’t think you can choose. We must have a fair balance between the two ideals in our society. Common sense should be the rule, but people are always going to squawk when they perceive an infringement on their privacy.
At Columbine, however, freedoms are allowed to be limited because the high school situation is not an open democracy. To attend a public high school you are giving up your personal rights to some degree to accept the limitations of the school rules. Taking away a student’s perceived right is the obligation of the school when it comes to safety.
A locker is not a private residence which precludes investigation by the school administration. The administration should fairly follow preset guidelines on such procedures. But they hold the keys as to whether or not to hold regular locker inspections.
And any parent should have some idea what is in their child’s room. If I had seen unexplained locks in my kid’s room, I would demand an accounting. Computers, also, for underage teens should be an open book to their parents. That would end some of the nonsense that is on the internet. Parents are responsible for their child’s actions and can even be prosecuted for teen’s abuses.
Good luck with your paper.
References :
November 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
There is never complete safety nor freedom. If you give up all of your freedom to a protector, you could find yourself in danger from an entity that has complete control over you. On the other hand, if complete freedom becomes unlimited license, you may find that the exercise of another person’s freedom impinges upon your own freedom and places you in danger.
I believe that the best safeguards come from self-governance. Each of us should seek to maximize our own freedom and safety. We should take realistic account of the risks and limitations in the world. Doing so, we can and usually do manage to live in harmony without a central authority to either protect us to enforce our rights. Mutual interests prompt most people to respect each others’ rights and safety.
With regard to Columbine, I think that the tragedy came first and foremost from the shooters’ choices. However, the victims had taken no thought for their own protection. Indeed, had they considered it, the organization (government) tasked with their protection would have attempted to restrict their ability to arm themselves in defense.
Columbine was an instance in which people trusted to the authorities to protect them. Admittedly, they did not have much reason to fear – the danger came out of nowhere. But I believe that you can make a case that giving up their freedom to arm themselves actually put them more at risk.
At the same time, allowing teenage students complete freedom to arm themselves comes with its own set of risks. Like I said, there are no perfect assurance in either safety or freedom.
References :