Freedom of Speech at AISG

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. First emerging during the Age of Enlightenment, freedom of speech is a relatively new concept in the course of human history, as such an idea had never been instituted in the thousands of years of predominantly authoritarian society before. The formation of the United States of America, as well as its Constitution, formalized the idea of freedom of speech in the First Amendment, setting a precedent for many other nations to follow.

Freedom of speech is a somewhat sensitive topic in China, however, as in many other undemocratic states where it is much guarded against and feared. Freedom of speech is essentially the freedom to have ideas, personalized opinions and thoughts, and the accompanying liberty to share those thoughts, with the chance for your idea to influence others and take its root among other people. It is uncontrolled, unpredictable, yet all-powerful, which is bad news for authoritarian regimes trying to control their population and secure power. Even in China, which appears to be modern, progressive, and reformed at times, the government still never grants its people the right to freedom of speech, and the internet police still track down those who dare deliver speeches that the government deems inappropriate. The idea of someone watching over you, the possibility that you may get in trouble for saying what you believe, is frightening. It undermines the free and open environment that true freedom of speech requires and provides. Freedom of speech cannot be truly achieved if individuals are worried that their own opinion, and its free expression, will bring upon them negative consequences for deviating from what the authority is advocating.

AISG has been doing quite well with promoting freedom of speech and expression. It hasn’t been an easy task, navigating the dangerous water of growing teenage minds while correcting malignant thoughts, but also allowing students to form their own beliefs freely. The spirit which the nation of America itself was built upon carried forward into its education, and AISG subsequently carried the openness of education from the U.S. into a land where such progressive ideas had previously been absent. Perhaps the most obvious example of AISG’s openness is the formation of the GSA, a group advocating for LGBT+ rights in a nation where this really isn’t a popular idea. Our school’s support for the Day of Silence also shows how our school is progressive and willing to accept students expressing their opinion—in this case, their support for the LGBT+ community.

However, issues arose with the growing GSA, as certain students privately expressed their disagreement with such values because they contradict their more conservative beliefs. Some students, though not many, view the open support of the LGBTQ+ community as inappropriate and have voiced these feelings against the movement, renouncing their support. Sometimes, those remarks would be called “homophobic” or even “disgusting” by people who support the cause. A person that I interviewed, who doesn’t wish to be named, stated that: “Many people are too afraid to speak their ‘controversial’ conservative values, which stops discourse in the community. When one truly speaks their minds backing their opinions with statistics and evidence, they are ridiculed with insults and assumptions instead of actual debates.”

But isn’t the idea of freedom of speech itself undermined by such behavior? What difference is there between a government that suppresses LGBTQ+ activists and a community that antagonizes those who deny such support? Does the great sword of judgment and hostility not hang above the people who express their own opinion against the trend of LGBTQ+ support, just as the great sword of judgment and hostility hung above the brave individuals who dared stand up for the LGBTQ+ community decades ago? The “you can’t say that” comments do nothing besides further sparking conflict between the two opinions, and making the topic more personal than it has to be, especially to those being told to shut up.

Of course, even in nations such as the United States that encourage freedom of speech, there are certain limitations to that freedom, and our school handbook sets similar restrictions. Speech cannot threaten harm or hint violence, and it shouldn’t be a personal attack. Targeted insults based on sexual preference constitute such hate speech, and should not, even in a free environment, be allowed, not to mention at school. However, homophobia is defined as something that “encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards the LGBTQ+ community.” Can one be targeted for having a negative attitude? Should someone be targeted for having a negative attitude? Is it fair? If an individual, due to cultural, religious, or just personal background, possesses such a negative attitude towards the issue of LGBTQ+ and voices his/her personal opinion on the matter, should that not be respected and allowed? That is a question that is debated, and will continue to be debated on around the world, not just in AISG.

After conducting a small poll on WeChat moments, most students responded by agreeing that “homophobia is an issue that needs to be addressed.” It is the common wish for many people to advance to a society where everyone can be respected for who they are, and the attitude of homophobia will eventually cease to exist, just like how civil rights activists are working to create a society in which racism will no longer hinder human interaction. However, I believe it is especially because of such a goal that we should encourage people, especially people who disagree with the LGBTQ+ movement, to speak up and voice their opinion. Instead of saying “You can’t say that”, encouraging those individuals to engage in civilized and educated debate and finally winning them over logically is much more effective in advancing the cause.

I am not suggesting that we can’t criticize homophobia, but we shouldn’t silence those who disagree. As the British author, Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Students, no matter their individual beliefs, should all respect and defend each others’ right to express their opinion. More importantly, students should also treat each other as people and engage in discussions rather than resort to attacks. I’d also like to point out just because one side is being heard, it doesn’t mean that the other side must be silenced.

Freedom of speech aims to provide an open, fair, and level ground for people of different opinions and beliefs to comfortably share their beliefs, allowing for civil debate among those who disagree. AISG has provided a relatively fair, open, and free environment for the people advocating for LGBTQ+ rights and support for the community, and such an accomplishment should generate pride.

I should probably first apologize for using the topic of LGBTQ+ as the case study here, it is perhaps the most dominant example of the issue, but it certainly doesn’t limit to only that. As long as the speech remains civil and non-malicious, students should be as comfortable to voice their opinion on an idea as they are to rally behind it. They should treat the people holding opposing views as fellow human beings, so true freedom of speech be achieved. As students, we would all benefit greatly, as well as be very thankful, to be educated in an environment where such everyone’s opinion can be respected and everyone can give their take on any issue.

This article advocates for the continued perfection of AISG as an environment where freedom of speech is encouraged and protected. One action it does not argue for is individuals using controversial topics to make controversial statements with the sole purpose of furthering division among the student body and attracting attention onto themselves for their own entertainment. Other than that, the great shield of freedom of speech should protect everyone, no matter what their opinion may be or how popular their beliefs are.

Feel free to comment, support or disagree!