I, like most Americans, watched in horror as the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School unfurled last December. As a former elementary school teacher, I could not stop seeing my former students as possible victims, and I was angry, confused, and eager for change to prevent another incident like this one.
Since the shooting, there’s been a lot of discussion about how to keep kids safe and how to prevent more violence. The tragedy in Newtown has sparked a national conversation about guns, mental illness, violence in the media and school safety, and over the past several weeks, there have been a number of Congressional hearings on these issues. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on a proposed assault weapons ban and the House Education and Workforce Committee will meet later this week for a hearing on school safety. Restricting access to certain types of firearms is one thing. But while some well-meaning policymakers might assume that putting more police in schools will make students safer, experience demonstrates otherwise. Censoring violent media or stigmatizing those with a mental illness as unusually violent won’t fix the problem either.
Research that those living with a mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violent attacks than to be the perpetrators. Stigmatizing the mentally ill as violent infringes on their freedoms while doing nothing to improve safety, but it may deter those who need help from seeking it. As a nation, we have advanced too far in our understanding and treatment of the mentally ill to succumb to panic and misinformation. Now is the time to instead open a dialogue between the government and the public at large about the accessibility and benefits of psychological treatment.
Censoring violence in the media also isn’t the answer. Study after study–not to mention the Supreme Court–has found nothing in violent material to override the freedoms of the First Amendment. Congress should not place themselves in the shoes of parents by deciding what children can see, read, play or hear. In times of national tragedy or fear, our nation often finds itself headed down the road towards censorship, but our focus should be on what we know to be impactful and what we know to be harmful.
Putting police in our schools is another solution that’s been proposed, but the unforeseen consequence of introducing a significant police presence in schools is that it transforms them into the very places education is meant to keep children away from–prison–and provides a more direct avenue to it. Most school police spend a significant portion of their time responding to minor, non-violent infractions like truancy rather than on issues that seriously threaten the safety and security of students. Criminalizing minor misbehavior that should be handled by a teacher, school administrator or parent has serious consequences for kids and contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline – policies that push kids out of the classroom and into jail cells.
This is not the first time this nation has reacted to violence with proposals for increased law enforcement in schools. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, Denver increased funding for police in schools, and , the city saw during the first five years the number of students referred to the justice system increase by 71% and the number of suspensions and expulsion increase by nearly half, with no reduction in incidents at schools. After almost a decade of seeing little benefit, high costs and negative consequences of police in schools, that keep schools safe.
I know we can’t lose sight of providing all students a quality education in a safe environment. Looking to the future, we need to find a balanced approach that establishes a safe and academically focused environment without further spreading the negative consequences of past policies.
The safety of our country’s children should remain a topic for discussion, and action must be taken to limit the violence that is ravaging our schools, streets and homes. Yet, as our past has shown, restrictive and reactionary measures only serve as temporary pain relievers with little effect on the actual problems.
As Congress continues to fight for an end to this violence, it is important not to lose sight of what works and what doesn’t.
Learn more about school-to-prison-pipeline and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.