“I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

You have all undoubtedly heard some version of this sentiment: from an activist, a YouTube video you mistakenly clicked or that one guy in your history class who knows a bit too much about the world wars. It’s a nice thought, and one often paraphrased by the politically active—an admirable quality of their platform. Free speech was built into the foundation of the United States government for a reason.

But apparently it only counts when your side is the victim.

A free press acts as a natural counterweight to those in power. True: the press can sometimes blow issues out of proportion or create a sense of hopelessness among readers. But the media—while often criticized for its unfavorable portrayal of nearly every occurrence and figure—plays a valuable role in holding the government accountable. 

And yet today, those who once spoke out against cancel culture and suppression of beliefs now spearhead movements against their own children’s expression.

Recently, a reporter for The BluePrint wrote a feature on the experiences of transgender students. The article intended to highlight the lives of one small part of the school community. Like all stories, it went through a thorough review process and focused on reporting, not editorializing. However, the school denied publication of the article. 

We have been censored before, but never for a feature story. 

Under Seminole County Public Schools board policy 5722, student newspapers are “non-public forums,” and “the style and content of the student publications and productions can be regulated for legitimate pedagogical [teaching-related], school-related reasons. School officials shall routinely and systematically review and, if necessary, restrict the style and/or content of all school-sponsored student publications and productions prior to publication/performance in a reasonable manner that is neutral as to the viewpoint of the speaker.” 

In simpler language, administration can stop school newspapers, yearbooks and more from publishing anything that might get in the way of teaching or disrupt the school environment.

As a paper, we believe it critical that we represent the school population. If even one story is denied publication solely based on the topic, the capsule of student experience provided by a school newspaper is incomplete. 

Any coverage of a sensitive topic can be construed as “likely to cause substantial disruption”—and important stories should cause readers to think and to take action. If something as simple as an account of students’ lives disrupts the peaceful, idyllic school environment, we should question what this environment costs us.

A school newspaper must reflect the experiences of the students. And not just the shiny ones. If a single student on campus (much less an entire community) has lived through something and finds themself affected by it every day, how can it be off-limits for others to read about? How can the lives of their peers be too vulgar for students to open a news website and read a single story about?

Although the principal made the decision to censor the story, the fault does not lie with him. Rather, it lies with those who developed an environment in which school officials must take such excessive precautions to avoid the possibility of a parent overreacting to a student-produced article and launching a chain of events culminating in bad publicity, an investigation and potentially even the loss of credibility for administrators and teachers.

Objective and truthful press coverage (yes, even from student press) should not be censored for any reason. And the direction we’re headed doesn’t look promising.

In September, comedian and late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air for a quip about the conservative response to Charlie Kirk’s death, due to pressure from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. 

In Florida, from 2022 to 2024, under the Parental Rights in Education Act, students and teachers could not even discuss gender identity and sexuality. (This remains in effect, but the severity has lessened due to a 2024 settlement.) Had it not been for the state of Florida’s obsession with regulating and censoring certain student experiences, we could have run the article without anyone batting an eye.

For an administration that seems to so ardently despise communist countries, and a state government that goes as far as to deny funding to schools with remote ties to China, our government seems to be going out of its way to mimic their authoritarian censorship.

Why do citizens strive to one-up each other in political dramatics? What kind of people will our generation grow up to be with role models who threaten state investigations when they don’t get their way on an issue that has nothing to do with them?

The First Amendment exists to protect those whose speech is most vulnerable. It doesn’t just exist for the creepy men yelling in the streets, or the guy who won’t leave you alone in the library. It exists to protect precisely those who are being denied this liberty today. It exists even when it is inconvenient.