Free speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. It is an inherent, inalienable right, without which human beings are held marginalized and powerless to have a say in the affairs of their society, their government and their world.

The following arguments have been widely used to infringe upon the free speech rights of young people:

That the First Amendment does not apply to young people. It is clear from both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent that the First Amendment applies to all citizens, regardless of age. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court held that students, who were underage, did not forfeit their First Amendment rights during attendance at a public school. Indeed, the court held that under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the students had the right to wear armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, because they were not disruptive, and did not infringe upon the rights of other individuals. Public school officials are only allowed to limit expression when it infringes upon the educational process. In West Virginia State Board Of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the Court acknowledged the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to salute the flag, and invalidated the expulsion of several students. In the majority decision the Court held that:

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."

While it is true that there are numerous cases limiting the application of the first amendment to young people, it is important to realize that the Constitution itself does not restrict the application of the First Amendment to those citizens over a certain age. Indeed, it is the spirit of the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all citizens, regardless of age.

That young people have no right to read materials which demonstrably have no redeeming artistic, literary, or social value. First of all, who is to determine what has "redeeming social value"? One man's treasure is another man's junk. Such descriptions have been applied to everything ranging from pornographic materials to widely-acknowledged great works of literature, such as Huckleberry Finn and The Catcher in the Rye. In the latter case, there have been attempts to ban or remove such great books from schools and libraries all over the nation. Indeed, a similar standard is not applied to adults, except in cases of "obscenity". It should be the right of young people to determine whether a work has value for themselves, just as adults have this right. Therefore, it is our position that government-mandated ratings systems which prohibit the purchase of works by young people are patently unconstitutional. Indeed, such systems are a mere stepping-stone to increased censorship. Once the First Amendment rights of young people are challenged and lost, the rights of all are at risk.

That the government has a duty to restrict materials which are deemed to be "harmful to minors". This falls essentially under the same category in that what is harmful to one person for one reason or another may be completely harmless to another, even if both are the same age. In any event, any potential gain by restricting access to material which one group determines to be harmful to minors, is easily offset by the harm done to the young citizen's first amendment rights, and the harm that widespread application of such laws does to a free society.

That our society will crumble if the First Amendment rights of young people are protected. Over the past several years, politicians and special interest groups have lamented that our society is crumbling at a rapid rate due to influences on young people from movies, music, the Internet, and television. On the contrary, violent crime is at a 30 year low, teenage pregnancy rates are on the decline, and this is while the variety of material which young people have been exposed to has increased. Our society is strengthened whenever there is the exercise of free speech, and the rational thought and intelligent discourse which follows. Certainly, there are influences out there in the media which are probably of questionable value, but in order to protect those which have the greatest value, so all must be protected.

We believe that the current state of the free speech rights of young people:

Comes dangerously close to elimination of First Amendment protections for young people. In the current atmosphere of our society, it is widely assumed that young people do not have First Amendment protections unless it is proven otherwise. Congress readily passes laws restricting the First Amendment rights of young people without any regard to their constitutionality, and hope that the most marginalized age group in our society will not be able to stand against it. It is very easy to lose one's rights, and very difficult to regain them.

Destroys the opportunity to see alternative viewpoints, and establish critical thinking and decision-making skills. In a democratic society, the views held by only one person deserve just as much protection as the views held by one million. The reason for the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is not so much to protect the one million as it is to protect the one person. A society in which only the majority viewpoint is presented to young people is not anywhere close to a free society, and indeed it is Orwellian in nature. As Voltaire said, "I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." By exposing themselves to alternative viewpoints, young people can build up a strong system of values by discussing what they encounter with parents, teachers, and friends, as well as reflecting on their experiences personally.

Perpetuates stereotypes about young people. Every human being is unique. No young person has the exact same maturity as another. To assume that everyone under a certain age is not "capable" of handling certain content, is a slap in the face to those who are capable. In a society where teens are widely viewed as impulsive, lacking in common sense, and out of control, surely the belief that no high school student should be allowed to read Huckleberry Finn because they are simply incapable of understanding and handling the content only adds to the negative hysteria in our society about youth.

We advocate the following solutions for the problems surrounding freedom of speech and young peoeple:

Repeal all age-based rating systems, whether government-mandated or government-forced. It is time for the government to stop telling young people what music they cannot listen to, what books they should not read, and what websites they should not view. Private entities such as AOL have already blocked the ASFAR homepage, and such rating systems have largely come to be due to threats and pressure from the government. If government mandated or forced a similar system across the country, can we really be safe in assuming that our website would not be blocked? Let young people view our site, or read the first few pages of a book, and then decide if they wish to go elsewhere, or close the book. At what point parents should have the power or should not have the power to restrict the content their children see and read is certainly debatable, but we hold that government interference in such matters is not only wrong, but it is also unconstitutional.

Establish, preferably in a Supreme Court decision, that young people are to be afforded the same First Amendment protections as all other citizens of the United States. In the Fourteenth Amendment, it is established that all are to be afforded equal protection under the laws. Differentiating between the First Amendment protections afforded those under a certain age is not equal protection under the laws.

Repeal all laws restricting the First Amendment protections of young people more than adults. It is the proper place of parents to educate their children and help them begin the never-ending path of learning and discovery. By setting arbitrary age restrictions in this area, the government only interferes in this process, and gives parents who do not wish to fulfill their obligations to their children a pass.

Support young people in being valuable members of our society. Perhaps if schools that are attempting to ban great works of literature took the same effort into teaching them, it would actually benefit young people. When young people do encounter material they find offensive or disturbing, as they inevitably will regardless of what the government tries to do to prevent it, parents and other adults need to take the lead and help young people consider and evaluate their experiences. When a person has the freedom to find and establish their own views, they value their standards and judgments all the more than if someone dictates the values of others to him.