School laws ought not to limit civil rights

I believe I have answered your questions presented in R2. A)What positive outcomes would occur if schools were to strongly enforce these limitations? Schools (as in regular society) have rules (laws in the case of society) that prevent disruption of the peace. That is the positive outcome, social peace. If we did not have these rules there would be anarchy, a million voices dying to be heard but never done so, for the million other voices. "If they want something that they will be deprived of, such as this debate goes it would be the freedom of speech, they will find a loop hole or even more likely they will just do it anyways" the same could be said about the many who want to commit murder, they find a loop hole (Stand your ground laws) or just do it anyway. Rules are meant to keep the peace as much as they can. B)What negative outcomes would occur if we eliminate these limitations? As mentioned previously: Anarchy! I feel as if you are focusing on the fact that your school limits freedom of speech and are neglecting the fact that all speech is limited. I present a couple court cases to show this point where the Supreme Court has set these limits. You have the following quote: "The first amendment, limitless, provides us with equality" This is factually incorrect, free speech IS limited. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute; it has never and will never be legally defined to be all inclusive. Your school has a right to enforce the legal limit of speech. From your quote: "I have seen many incidents of opinion stated arguments in my high school that has resulted in suspensions and referral," It seems as if you school is taking action within its appropriate capacity. The state, in your case the school, and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. For example no one may "insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech" (Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471 [1965]). The Supreme Court has recognized three forums of public expression: traditional public forums, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. You school, is an example of a "Limited Public Forum," government designated places for civic discussion. Capitol grounds, courthouses, state fairs, and public universities (I would think this extends to your school) are all qualified as limited public forums for First Amendment purposes. Although the government may designate such places as sites for public speech under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court has recognized that individual expression is not the sole objective served by limited public forums. You school is entirely in its right, both morally and legally (according to the constitution and the supreme courts" rulings) to limit your freedom of speech just as the state limits mine. You understanding seem to be, according to your quote: "Just because their duty is to educate, does not give them the right to limit our rights that are unlimited in society." Suggesting that you: 1) Believe that the right is limitless; I have show the contrary 2) Think that the school is going above its reasonable rights to limit your speech, I have shown since your school would possibly qualify as a limited forum they are within their rights to limit speech accordingly. You do have a legal recourse if this limit is being taken to an extreme and is thus infringing on your rights. ACLU would be a good authority to contact if this is the case. You are correct here "we still have the right to state our opinion, and that cannot be limited (unless of course in writing)." Which is the center of my explanation, it IS in writing that your right to free speech IS limited. Supreme Court cases on this subject have been cited previously (and towards the bottom) by me in support of my argument. The quote from Justice Holmes was to show that there is a limit to speech that may incite violence The quote does not express that you will be violent only that your right to free speech is limited to whether or not it may incite a reasonable person to become violent. Will an act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that incite immediate violence or incite illegal action by yourself or others. You CANNOT say something that you know WILL provoke others physically. The rules in your school, given that student are young and are not sure of the particulars of the law, if the purpose of the regulation is to prevent these types of acts of violence by punishing you for saying something that will cause physical violence in the school, and then they are within their rights. You may however, request permission to hold some time during your lunch or free time in the court yard to publicly address your concerns, this would be much like getting a permit to protest in times square. If they refuse based on what you plan to say simply because they disagree, you may have a court case that you can win, however I am not a lawyer so the ACLU would be my first contact. Your quote "I am merely supporting the full limitless right to freedom of speech for myself and my fellow students." Is predicated on the idea that freedom of speech being limitless, which I feel by now I have proved it not to be in any case, school or not. In my arguments I have relied on the following supreme court cases: Schenck v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org... Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org... New York Times Co. v. Sullivan http://en.wikipedia.org... Miller v. California http://en.wikipedia.org... Roth v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org... FCC v. Pacifica Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org... I also relied heavily on: http://lawbrain.com... http://www.freedomforum.org...