I have a standard rant that serves as an introduction to all of my other rants.
The topic: freedom of speech

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — U.S. Constitution / Bill of Rights.

I absolutely loathe the interpretation that many people hold in which the phrase "freedom of speech" is used as an entitlement to scream, shout, or otherwise be obnoxious, loud, and overbearing, while in an inappropriate venue.

For the record, I am an educator by trade and I am held accountable for facilitating a mandatory curriculum under a system known as compulsory education. As such, my classroom is an inappropriate venue for unlimited free speech. This is not to say that I do not attempt to provide opportunities for empowering my students to share an opinion; however, said opinions cannot hold back my lesson. Once it interferes with my task of educating the whole group, the individual's right to freedom of speech is diminished or removed. The problem is that most people just don't understand that the freedom of speech rights are for appropriate venues. A person on a street corner, standing on a soapbox, is well within their freedom of speech rights. That same person, who, as I walk by, decides to follow me on a promenade while opining en route has become a harasser, although is still within the right of freedom of speech. That same harasser who is now slandering me on the way is still within the right of freedom of speech.

Now, were I with my class on a walking field-trip (let's say it's a historical review of a downtown area), the matter changes drastically. Up on that soapbox, with us walking by, there is no infraction. As soon as one steps off that soapbox to follow our class, there might be a disruption to the education of the group. Were our soapbox denizen now following the class and endeavoring to opine at them, my instructional goals might be undermined. Because of the intentionality of the actions of the opiner, and because of the compulsory nature of education, we have violated the rights of the students. All of the students. They are being deprived of their lesson by the actions of an outsider by an intentional and continuing act.

This situation was constructed as a preface to what really often happens. Instead of the class being on a walking field-trip, the class is in its classroom. There is no stranger on the street corner who has the ability to interfere. However, this time, it is a student of the class itself who stands up, is arguing with another student (or even with the teacher), is well off-topic from the lesson, and who claims freedom of speech. That's the one that just ticks me off. There is no qualitative difference between the soapbox denizen and the loud student with regards to how it interferes with the lesson. Because of the intentionality of the actions of the opiner, and because of the compulsory nature of education, we have violated the right of the students. All of the other students. They are being deprived of their lesson by the actions of an insider by an intentional and continuing act.

Simply put, the classroom is not an appropriate venue for disruptive acts of freedom of speech. Now, I am well aware of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Students woe black arm-bands to protest the Vietnam War. The restriction of wearing these arm-bands by students was ruled against because they "did not cause undue interruptions of school acitvities". The issue here is that of disruption of the educational system. Nowhere in the Tinker case does has it been ruled that students cannot have free speech available to them, as a rule. However, simultaneous with that is the right to an education, which the Tinker case implies is of a higher rank than the right of freedom of speech in that venue.

There is another school case: Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675. In this case, a student was giving a speech before an assembly of students in which he was nominating a classmate for Vice-President of the Associated Student Body. The speech was filled with sexual innuendos, which it would be deemed is inappropriate and disruptive considering the venue. Let's consider more closely what would be permitted here and what would not. A student giving a nominating speech is permitted. Public speaking is permitted. Opinions are permitted. Public nominations are permitted. Where this act of speech went astray was in its sexual implications, which in a high school setting, is regarded as inappropriate and disruptive. The limitation of free speech here is quite minimal, but once again, the benchmark by which such acts are measured is that of the disruption and violation of greater rights.

Moving out of the school system for examples, falsely yelling "Fire" in a darkened movie theater, causing panic and perhaps even injury as people vie for the exits, is prohibited free speech. Were there a real fire and a real concern for the overall well-being of people, those injuries which would likely be sustained would likely be the lesser of two possibilities. However, tables turned, without a real fire, the injuries which would likely be sustained are the greater of the two possibilities. The right to not be unnecessarily harmed (in effect, anonymously assaulted) outweighs free speech.

Let us imagine another situation. I am sick and tired of people who think that they own the road (a rant in itself). That I might protest another driver by swerving erratically in front of them (and perhaps in front of other drivers) is not an appropriate form or venue of protest. It is disruptive to the flow of traffic on a public road. Granted, the person who thinks that they own the road is also, perhaps, culpable of disruption; however, a first disruption does not justify a response potentially disruptive to other parties. A (finite-length) beep of the horn and a (non-obscene) hand gesture would be appropriate. The right to use public roads free of disruption outweighs the right of disruptive free speech, although horn and hand gesture in mind, it does not outweigh summarily the right to free speech. Again, the limitation of free speech here is quite minimal, but once again, the benchmark by which such acts are measured is that of the disruption and violation of greater rights.

Another issue I have an opinion on is flag burning. Where and how this is done should be regulated. Specifically, there needs to be appropriate times and venues for which one could burn the flag of our country, and there needs to be also a consideration of greater rights that limits how flag burning takes place. For example, if I brought a flag, went to town square in front of my state's capital, and burnt that flag, the only consideration I should fear is that my fire will become too incendiary and thus out of my control. I really ought to be prepared to put my own fires out, as should anyone burning a flag. Now, contrast this with a situation in which the Governor is addressing the masses. Do I burn a flag there? There is the consideration that I would be bringing fire to a large group of people. This is worth limiting while it is unregulated.

In all honesty, my utopian hope is that someone could apply for a (free) permit to commit a free speech act under control circumstances during such a public assembly. "Dear Governor, I should very much like to burn a flag at your upcoming public address in order to protest the way in which you have given support to ..." Reply: "Thank you for your interest in politics. We will need to make proper arrangements. Please make an appointment with ..." Of course, there might be too many applicants in which case I would begrudgingly accept a lottery for deciding amongst the many protesters. Ideally, with that level of interest, there would be organized a Day of Protest, for which all reasonable concerns of the State are met as well as all the reasonable demands of the protesters. "Come one, come all, to hear the voices of discontent, down at the Plaza, this Monday night! Jointly sponsored by the State of ___ and the ACLU." I guess that I am truly Jeffersonian in my desire to want as peaceful a revolution as possible. That is, if the drive for free speech is so strong, it should be heard, but not while creating any unnecessary risks or threats to greater rights.

Free speech is a right, but it is situated within the greater context of all rights. That it came bundled with other rights as a First Amendment was coincidence; it was actually the third amendment presented. Of the first two presented, one has never been ratified by the requisite number of states and the other became our Twenty-Seventh Amendment (over 200 years after its introduction). It was not intended per se that the enumeration of Amendments indicated a ranking of precedence. (Were that true, the argument would be that the law of elected federal officials to not grant themselves a pay raise for the current term, which was proposed just in front of this amendment, outweighs the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.) In fact, James Madison took great measures to have the opposite be true – specifically to stave off any concern that one state's preference for a ranking should outweigh other states' preferences.

In summary, while we desire so badly that the freedom of speech is inviolate, this is not true. There are greater needs of the soceity as a whole that might give rise to circumstances for which an individual must be told to express an opinion elsewhere. Note that this is not that the opinion cannot be expressed, but that the venue and timing is inappropriate.