Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The independent student publication of The University at Buffalo, since 1950

Silencing War Protestors

Selective Free Speech is Anti-American


In an attempt to punish anti-war sentiment, administrators in a New Mexico high school have threatened teachers with suspension unless they remove student-made anti-war posters. Also a proposed anti-terrorism bill in Oregon would legally brand protestors as terrorists should they block traffic or commerce with their demonstrations.

By preventing individuals from voicing contrary opinions to the war with Iraq, school administrations and government officials are taking away the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Americans - no matter their opinions - have a right to be heard.

Allen Cooper and Geoffrey Barrett, teachers from Highland High School in Albuquerque, N.M., were suspended because they allowed war-related posters to be displayed on classroom walls, according to a CNN.com article. Both anti-war and pro-war posters displayed, but school administrators only demanded the anti-war posters be removed.

"Asking me to take down the posters was taking away the voice of the students and I was not going to do that," stated Barrett, who teaches history and current events.

High school students are old enough to understand what they are demonstrating against, and punishment for voicing the unpopular side of a controversial issue is not fair to the students or teachers involved. The administration is using power to suppress dissent, and in effect, teaching students that questioning the status quo is wrong.

The Highland High School administration cannot be selective in choosing which works stay and which go. To prevent a slanted view of the war, all or none of the war-related posters must be removed from the school walls.

Schools are a safe locale for individuals to voice their opinions, and if they cannot protest there, they will more than likely find other - and perhaps more dangerous - places to express their opinions.

In a move demonstrating similar contempt for anti-war views, legislators in Portland, Ore. proposed a bill to prevent people from protesting publicly. The proposed "anti-terrorism" bill would have street-blocking protesters arrested, and if convicted, sentenced to 25 years to life, according to a Washington Post article.

The bill, labeled Senate Bill 742, would legally define a disruptive demonstrator as a terrorist, under the definition that a terrorist is a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools government, and free assembly.

This definition is extremely broad and turns an individual's dissenting opinion into a crime. The bill is vague and full of contradictions, such as the statement that a terrorist is one who disrupts "the free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon," as shown on the Oregon State Legislature's Web site. A protest itself is a form of free assembly, and thus this bill is a clear violation of the first amendment. The bill falls apart due to its own loopholes, which is why state legislators feel the bill has little chance of passage.

Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host whose program is broadcasted from Portland, Ore., supports the proposed bill, and said he feels additional tools must be used to control the city. "Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown to block a freeway," said Larson.

Larson's assessment of the problem in this manner, as well as the ideology behind Senate Bill 742, is nothing more than a way for the Oregon government to repress individuals from making a public stand against the war.

The bill is phrased so that anyone who hinders any type of public operation would be branded as a terrorist, and labels all demonstrators as terrorists. This is absurd. Would Rosa Parks - an American hero who took a stand to defend her rights - be branded a terrorist because she hindered a bus from making its daily route?

There cannot be selective free speech, as is the case in New Mexico and Oregon. School administrations and governmental bodies cannot monitor who says what, and where they say it. Allowing unpopular opinions to be heard is part of what makes America the land of the free, and silencing that voice is the only action occurring that is anti-American.




Comments


Popular






View this profile on Instagram

The Spectrum (@ubspectrum) • Instagram photos and videos




Powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2026 The Spectrum