Week 5 Text Response

This political cartoon, drawn by Brain Fairrington, deals with the topic of freedom of speech. The pre-reading question in the book “Argument!” is written as follows: “Should authorities ever resort to force in response to a student’s outspokenness?” (Argument! 352) In addition, the sign in the cartoon, “Warning: Colleges are Free Speech Free Zones” also makes the topic clear. The cartoon itself is referring to an incident with a Senator and Student at a college event. The excerpt from Argument summarized the incident as:

“In September 2007, Senator John Kerry spoke at the University of Florida’s Constitution Day, an event organized by the UF student government. Upon hearing the organizers would take only one more question for Senator Kerry, Andrew Meyer, a senior telecommunications major, grabbed a microphone and demanded to be heard. Meyer then became increasingly unruly, prompting the campus security to intervene; according to accounts, Meyer resisted UF police, who then resorted to Tasering him. The student’s exclamation, ‘Don’t taze me, bro!” pervaded media channels for several weeks, with people uploading numerous videos to YouTube spotlighting his plea. Brain Fairrington, the cartoonist, uses the incident to make a broader claim about free speech on college campuses” (Argument! 352).

I agree that students have a right to freedom of speech on college campuses. This political cartoon and the book’s question are assuming that the student, Andrew Meyer, was tasered due to his infringement on this right. However, this is not the reason that he was tasered. This cartoon is missing the point of protection and freedom of speech. I believe that it was not unlawful to take these measures against Andrew Meyer.

Citizens of America have a right to protection under the Second Amendment. Because of this, bodyguards and security guards are lawful - as long as they act out of defense. If this police were to have tasered this boy only because of his words, it would not be lawful.

This is because citizens of America also have the right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Citizens have the right to speak their beliefs. However, it is to be done “peaceably” and orderly. The Second Amendment helps to ensure the orderliness.

Andrew Meyer was not speaking peaceably or orderly. The Senator was clear that he would only take one more question, and Meyer was not chosen. Out of anger, he grabbed the microphone and began to speak. If the police were to taser him at this moment, it still would have been unlawful. However, they did not. “Meyer then became increasingly unruly [opposite of peace and orderliness], prompting the campus security to intervene…” (Argument! 352). Only when Meyer “resisted the police” was he tasered.

The tasering was not in response to the student’s outspokenness, it was in response to resisting the police. Even so, was this student’s right to freedom of speech taken away? Absolutely not! His statement could easily have been posted somewhere else, put on a banner and protested, or seen in many other ways. He simply could not have said it in that one place. Also, the Senator did not take only one question. Meyer did not have an unfair chance of being chosen. If he were to make questions unlimited, the entire campus could have been held there for weeks. In fact, by speaking out, he was not allowing the Senator to speak, thus taking away another’s rights to Freedom of Speech.

While I understand the point that Fairrington is trying to get across, this is a poor example of colleges taking away Freedom of Speech. In reality, the tasering was an example of the people’s right to protection; it was not a response to the student’s outspokenness. It was a response to resisting the police. This tasering was absolutely constitutional and, therefore, should not be used as an example of college’s lack of Freedom of Speech.