Court ruling shows free speech dilemma

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling tightening the limits on student speech. According to the 5-4 majority ruling given by Chief Justice John Roberts, public schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use.

A high school student unfurled a homemade banner that had a nonsensical message as the 2002 Winter Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

The student thought his sign could say anything he wanted. His principal thought otherwise and said that the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. The student was suspended, which prompted a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Another Supreme Court decision handed down at the same time, again with a 5-4 split, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air advertising during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The court said that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights.

In both cases, it is not really free speech that is at issue, but rather the government's responsibility to ensure that individuals and private companies maintain their endowed right to use their property as they wish, so long as they do not initiate force against another.

The First Amendment restricts government from interfering with what people say, but the problem that always arises, especially in the case of public schools, is the ownership of the property. The state of Arizona and the rest of the 49 states own the property on which all public (government) schools are located. Since government owns the property, government gets to decide what speech is allowed.

Government, in order to be an impartial arbiter and enforcer of private property rights, ought not to own any property. That way it can abide by the First Amendment.

Private individuals and companies can restrict speech. Government is not allowed to do so. If all schools were privately owned rather than government owned, individuals could choose the school to which they send their children based upon, among other concerns, what speech is allowed on the various school grounds.

For the same reason, government ought not to own or control any media, whether it be print or broadcast.

Regarding the McCain-Feingold case, in a free society any private company may air any message it wants, when it wants, so long as it can persuade and make a contract with the particular media involved to broadcast the message.

The only responsibility of government is to see to it that the contract is upheld in the event of a dispute. If individuals do not like what is being distributed, they can choose not to read, listen or view it.

When government stays out of the business of education and advertising and does what it is supposed to do - namely to be sure that the particular private entities involved, whether they be individuals or companies, uphold their end of the contract and enforce the private property rights with which each is endowed - the First Amendment remains intact and the dilemma of free speech is removed.

---

Howard J. Blitz is a local libertarian and

president of The Freedom Library Inc.,

2435 S. 8th Ave. His e-mail address is

info@freedomlibrary.org