Since Tinker v Des Moines, it has been asserted that "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" and that "the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school...and are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings" (Morse v Frederick). With the growth of the internet and the ease of its use, information that may have been deemed "inappropriate" during the years of these three cases has become increasingly familiar to students at an increasingly earlier age, causing students to engage in casual discussions about drugs, alcohol, and sex earlier and earlier. Schools, as seen in Morse v Frederick, balk at any mention of drugs at school events and with the ruling in Morse, the Supreme Court upheld the schools' ability to restrict speech that would appear to contribute to the promotion of illegal drugs and other dangers. It is understood that schools can restrict the speech of students in the cases that it can cause disruptions in schools and promote illegal behavior, but I want to argue that these restrictions are not on the condition of the status of the individual (whether he is a student or adult) but on the condition of the environment and setting (the school). Would these restrictions on student speech carry over to other public environments, such as a grocery store, public library, or city demonstration? Would the adults at the school be allowed to unfurl a poster that said "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" and achieve a different ruling from the Supreme Court because they are adults? If students at Yale had done the same thing, I don't think the reaction would have been the same as in Morse because of the setting of the collegiate institution and the liberal framework of mind.

My assertion that environment provides a greater restriction on speech than the status and age of the individual, unfortunately, does not carry over to the discussions on the filtering of the Internet for student access. I believe greatly in the relevance of the "overbreadth" doctrine as a point against filtering, but I also understand the concern of some parents on the necessity of placing filters on public computers. Although these discussions on filtering relate to the discussions that we had in class in the 2nd week, I myself am still unclear about my opinion on the existence of laws that regulate what individuals can and cannot view on the internet. I do, however, believe that individuals should not be subjected to any unexpected speech, such as the cyber rape depicted in Dibbell or the radio program in Pacifica, and I anticipate that this will be the framework in which I will use to begin my assessment of filters on the internet.