Most Constitutional rights are limited rights – including the freedoms of speech and assembly – as they rightly should be.

It is noteworthy and commendable that many students and some faculty have chosen to mobilize and advocate for what they see as an unwise campus policy that they assert limits free speech to a couple of locations on campus. And I very much respect their commitment and effort. However, perhaps they should more thoroughly think through the end result of a change of policy.

First, let us be clear about the facts. There is not ban on free speech outside those two locations. If I stand in front of any building on campus and casually chat with the person next to me about who should be elected president, or about corporate welfare or unpopular campus policies or what a jerk a particular math professor can be, I need not fear that a campus police officer within earshot is going to wrestle me to the ground.

As I understand the restriction, what is limited is the right to hold a demonstration or assembly to advocate one’s views in an organized or unorganized demonstration. And, while it might be reasonable to consider that more than two sites would be preferable, some limitation on demonstrations are, in fact, quite reasonable for respecting those who might not wish to be inundated by a verbal barrage of political and social topics as they are focused on their daily lives or maybe just simply wanting to enjoy a little peace and quiet during their hectic lives.

Think about the consequences of truly unlimited free speech. The Supreme Court long ago pointed out that a person cannot shout “fire” in a crowded movie house, nor disclose troop movements. There are restrictions against libel and plagiarism as well. Also, people wishing to exercise their right to assemble usually are required to get a permit and are restricted to a particular time and place for such a purpose in almost every community in America.

There are justifiable reasons why speech and assembly should be restricted here on campus. Obviously, people are not allowed to interrupt class lectures in order to advocate their own personal agenda. Should people against abortion be allowed to thrust poster-size pictures of mutilated fetuses into the face of a student who is trying to steady their nerves for a grueling midterm that they are about to take? And, a person should not be able to stand outside of a residence hall at 3 a.m. with a blow horn and broadcast to the entire building a religious sermon against the evils of fornication? (It could be a real mood killer if some residents were actually trying to enjoy a little recreational evil at that particular moment). And, most people would not think it appropriate for a group of Ku Klux Klan members in full garb to shout their idiotic and racist remarks as they parade through the meeting room where the Black Student Union is attempting to hold a meeting.

There are reasonable restrictions that can and should be made on everyone’s rights so that one person’s or one group’s rights do not infringe on the right of others to not have to be excessively inconvenienced by speech and demonstrations at times and places that infringe on their right to their own rights. Because we all have rights, our rights and those of others will sometimes come into conflict. Therefore, there must sometimes be restrictions and limitations even on constitutional rights to protect the rights of all: those who wish to exercise a right and those who wish to not have another’s rights deny their own. The right to speak does not mandate that others be forced to listen.

Perhaps the commendable activism and energy of those complaining their rights to unrestricted free speech are unreasonably restricted might better spend their time ensuring the speech advocated is directed toward the expression of something worthy speaking about.

Terry Kappel

Senior, history