Why I Love the First Amendment: A Reflection on Freedom of Speech

by Georgina Gamble ’29 on November 20, 2025

Opinion

I had the pleasure of attending Father Sicard’s panel, With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges, this past Thursday, Nov. 13. Although honestly, my primary motivations for showing up were to receive extra credit for some classes, this year’s discourse on the nuances of free speech left me thoroughly engaged, pondering, and in the best way, patriotic.

We’ve all learned about them at some point in our lives: the Constitution. The First Amendment. I am almost certain that most of us can rattle off our Miranda Rights to some extent. Except for tedious history classes and the occasional trip to an American history museum, have we ever stopped and taken a minute to actually appreciate what these old documents mean?

We are living in an era of severe turmoil in America. That’s not necessarily something to be proud of. To me, the bickering itself is something of a miracle. We live in a special country: our founders, in their antiquity, were ahead of their time. These 300-year-old dead guys were probably more liberal than some of our own grandparents. Their goal was simple: they wanted their citizens to discuss, debate, and yell for what they cared about, no matter who or what was being called out in the process. We have the ability to hold our leaders accountable without penalty. We can organize, assemble, petition, and write about issues that we care about, without a catch. There are no consequences. Many countries didn’t have this right back then, and a good handful still aren’t even close to achieving it now.

Despite the chaos in today’s political climate, the pure idea of democracy instilled in America’s founding brings me a spark of hopeful patriotism. What’s even more of a privilege than the First Amendment on its own is our freedom of speech to discuss our freedom of speech, as our college has done during this panel. To be so at ease with our civil liberties that we can critique, praise, and question them is very telling of our American identity. Despite our polarization and divisions, we are still united through the strands of democracy we care about the most. We all want to shout our grievances, protest injustices, and fume over politics at the dinner table, no matter our side of the battle. We know that there are no ramifications to these uses of our voices—our only enemy is each other.

I have faith that we will realize the privilege we have to live in this nation, to argue for what we think needs to be heard without fear of arrest or capital penalty, only fear that our neighbors might throw us a dirty look at the grocery store. A collective refresher on the rights embedded in the threads of our nation would not (and should not) stop the fighting, but would maybe bring the fighting a little closer together. I think what America needs right now is something of a Constitutional group hug.

The Limits of With Mutual Respect

by Courtney Wight '26 on November 20, 2025

Opinion

On Thursday, Nov. 13, Providence College held the next installment of the series, With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges. This installment sought to discuss the topic of “Freedom of speech in crisis: What has gone wrong, and is there hope for civil discourse in America?” While the student panelists were expertly prepared, I believe the format did not allow for productive discussion.

The format was a six-minute position statement from each panelist, followed by a three-minute response or question. The six-minute position statements, while informative and full of great discussion material, were boring as an audience member, especially by the final panelists, as the statements started to blend together in my head. Many of the panelists identified a need for students to better discuss issues on campus, particularly through active listening. Yet, this very debate format encourages passive, rather than active listening. As an audience member, I was trying my best to follow along with each panelist’s statements, but I was easily lost in the statements due to their length.

I believe the format needs the most reform in the question section at the end. Students were encouraged to ask questions; however, these questions were not able to be fully answered. The panelists’ answers were limited to one minute, which is not enough time to unpack the complicated questions posed. Additionally, questions were either for a specific panelist, two panelists, or all four panelists. This format created scenarios where there was no opportunity for a panelist to directly respond to an answer by a fellow panelist, since certain questions were targeted towards a specific panelist. This format left numerous questions largely undiscussed, as they were very passively answered and dismissed without any following response or contradiction from a fellow panelist.

I believe the struggles of the debate rest most in the framing of the topic. The actual heart of the debate regarding free speech, in my opinion, was rarely touched. Issues such as hate speech or censorship were briefly mentioned and never really explored. I believe this was not the fault of the panelists, but the structure and topic itself.

Finally, I believe there is a future need for diversity of majors on the panel. As a history and finance double major myself, I know the history classes I’ve taken involve reading and discussions based on analyzing and interpreting sources, while also connecting them to the context in the past and the present. On the other hand, my business classes are lecture-based with minimal discussion. To have a productive debate on these topics, the student panelists should be those who do not have these discussions on a normal basis. Students who may not be experts on the topic but are willing to work with a professor to learn and prepare for the debate should be chosen over students regularly engrossed in discussing these topics. I personally feel a panel composed of STEM or business majors would be more impactful, as it would provide students with an opportunity to have discussions they may not normally have. Providence College prides itself on offering a liberal arts education, particularly through the Development of Western Civilizations program; therefore, every student on this campus should be able to prepare and deliver a concise argument on the selected topics.

Overall, the debate accomplished the purpose of mutual respect. There was no coarse language, and all the responses were well prepared, but I’m largely left wanting more. A whole debate on hate speech protections would have been enough, instead of being stuffed as an afterthought into the larger debate on free speech. Furthermore, the structure of the event needs improvement, particularly in the question section, to allow for greater discourse between the panelists.

With Mutual Respect Panel on Free Speech

by Christian Cintron ’28 on November 20, 2025

News

Last Thursday, Nov. 13, the most recent installation of the With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges series was held, centered around the question of “Freedom of speech in crisis: What has gone wrong, and is there hope for civil discourse in America?” The panelists included Shannon Kelly ’26, Isabelle Camoin ’26, Carlie Burns ’27, and Zachary Stoyer ’27, with Carl Picerno ’26 serving as the panel’s moderator. This series was established by the College’s president, Father Kenneth R. Sicard, O.P. ’78, ’82G, in 2022. The overarching purpose of the series has been to promote mutually respectful dialogue between students and faculty with opposing viewpoints, seeking to prove that “individuals who hold very different opinions about controversial topics can engage in fruitful and respectful dialogue.”

Kelly was the first panelist to provide her opening statement. She asserted that speech is an integral human device, and by losing it, we lose our outlet for critical thought and ability to hold those in power accountable. She mentioned recent limitations on free speech, including bans on Diversity Equality and Inclusion initiatives, banning of books in states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, pro-Palestinian protests, and limits on academic freedom. She addressed systemic issues that are inherent to some institutions, such as the amplification of white male voices, silencing the voices of people of color in the process. She claimed these practices are seen at Providence College, with the required Development of Western Civilization focusing on white- and male-centered topics and authors. She concluded by saying that the pursuit of truth has intrinsic value and all voices must be allowed to be heard.

Burns gave the next opening statement. She highlighted the unwillingness of people to listen to those who hold other viewpoints and gave free speech a definition of anything that brings forth argumentation, although hate speech is not protected under this concept. She pointed to the lack of educational equity as a problem regarding free speech, with the left dominating the educational sphere. Stating that she finds problems of inequality and intersectionality to be important to her, Burns believes inequalities cannot be solved without civic dialogue and reframing hostile conversations to find commonalities. In regard to the issue of comfort, Burns concluded by declaring that citizenship is about debating the common good, and citizens need to be willing to engage uncomfortably to avoid ideological homogeneity.

Stoyer shared his opening statement by quickly engaging with the issue of polarization; he observed that polarization now expands not only to politics, but also to an individual’s character. The majority of Americans are exposed to diverse viewpoints, especially through social media, but are unwilling to listen to or engage with them, which he believes encourages such polarization and is not productive. Stoyer stated that he is a proponent of “free speech that gets somewhere”––positive, forward-thinking, and productive in nature. He suggested that we should “argue less” and “debate more” to build empathy, along with depoliticizing spaces that don’t need to be politicized to control polarization.

Camoin began the final opening statement by posing free speech as a human issue. She noted that in the current political climate, liberals are perceived to limit free speech while conservatives are viewed as advocates of it; meanwhile, political institutions and parties profit from this combat. She viewed the cancellation of the With Mutual Respect panel on immigration not as a hindrance to free speech, as the issue was still discussed in a way that did not enable this combat between political ideologies. She addressed how deeming civil debate, as she has previously been told, “too unreasonable and unexciting” obstructs ideals of free speech. She claimed that professors often do not live up to the standards of allowing students to come to ideas on their own terms, which limits free thinking; classrooms should focus on “co-creating truths on a subject.” Camoin also tackled the issue of political apathy, where people are uninformed and not passionate, another problem that restricts civic dialogue. She encouraged people to “stop debating” and “start talking to one another,” proclaiming that free speech is not simply saying whatever one wants whenever they want.

The session for rebuttals then began, with Burns offering the first response to other panelists. She disagreed with the notion that we need to “argue less” and “debate more” that was presented by Stoyer, claiming that “everything is political” and that dialogue is needed, even if it becomes an argument. She believes that by assuming people speak a certain way or take a certain position based on their political ideology, they are limited in their outlet of free speech.

Kelly challenged Burns’s view on debate, stating that democratic listening is passive; active listening entails asking questions, reciprocal curiosity, and engaging in conversation, and “true listening demands accountability from all parties involved.” Camoin aligned with Kelly’s ideals and refuted Stoyer’s stance about debate, questioning how debate can embody free speech while others are boxed into being opposition, inherently resulting in hostility. Disagreeing with Burns’s statement, she claimed to not see the same left-leaning domination in academia, especially not at Providence College. Stoyer disputed Burns’s claim that “everything is political,” disagreeing that politics is inherent to free speech. He also opposed Camoin’s viewpoints, stating that people need to be interested in meaningful conversations for them to matter, citing the success of presidential debates in having people invested, and that the clash of ideas is inevitable.

The panelists then moved on to the question-and-answer session, answering several questions selected by Picerno from the panel’s audience. Some of the most notable questions included the issue of the proposed Turning Point USA chapter at the College, and how its rejection can be viewed as anything other than an impediment of free speech. Burns responded, saying the chapter was hypocritical for representing an organization promoting a Professor Watchlist, while claiming to promote free speech, and also stated that its presence on campus could have created positive tension. Kelly argued that the chapter solely reaffirmed conservative voices and that its existence on campus is unnecessary because its name is associated with hatred, which suppresses dialogue. She thought that the club would have been more fruitful as a conservative debate club. Camoin also mentioned that given Student Congress’s option to vote by ballot on the issue, students were fearful of having their vote on the chapter’s passage being made public, which speaks to the implication that the chapter would have had for free speech on campus.

Another question posed was regarding the controversy on campus regarding the inability to use the word “pride” in event programming, a decision upheld by the College’s administration, and how this decision impedes free speech. Camoin maintained that the College has the right to implement this rule, but that does not make it morally sound, and the College should reconsider this issue. Burns also responded, stating that this decision suppresses comfort within the College as a residential community. She asserted that the college experience is a pivotal time for exploring identity, and the omission of “pride” in messaging limits growth, even for those not a part of the LGBT community who feel pride in other ways.

The question of students’ fear of speaking up and how to address it was asked to all panelists. Kelly agreed that students are afraid to speak up, especially in core curriculum classes such as theology and philosophy, as students often align their values with those of the professor teaching the class. Furthermore, she suggested telling a trusted professor about their concerns. Burns proposed that professors can create comfortable classrooms by looking at topics objectively and being willing to listen to different perspectives. Stoyer attested that a larger problem is students being scared to share their views with their peers, while Camoin valued challenging professors by asking questions.

The final question was what the panelists hope for on campus following this discussion regarding free speech. Burns hoped that students would get tired of being so partisan and be willing to consider social factors of why people think the way that they do, even when their views can be seen as offensive. Camoin encouraged students to say less on social platforms such as Yik Yak and more in class. She also talked about the importance of expressing oneself using the Diversity, Inclusion, and Dialogue walls and for professors to be aware of how they can create a classroom conducive to dialogue. Kelly hoped that students would learn from one another, especially those with opposing viewpoints. She challenged students to be engaged in the classroom, focus on learning rather than their devices, and greet one another in person. Closing the panel, Stoyer simply pressed students to “get off political Twitter.”

The Cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live!

by Rachel Barter ’27 on September 25, 2025

Opinion

A Systematic Attack on Freedom of Speech

Recently in the United States, we have seen a vast number of attacks on freedom of speech from both political parties, most notably regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month and the cancellation of both The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and, most recently, Jimmy Kimmel Live!

Understandably so, Republicans and Democrats were both disgusted by the killing of Kirk and the attack on his freedom of speech, which was key to his career as a Republican advocate and debater. However, Democrats seem to be the only people to be disgusted by the cancellations of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, as well as other attacks on Democrats’ freedom of speech.

In fact, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was cancelled because Kimmel made comments regarding conservatives’ responses to Kirk’s death and the investigation that followed. Kimmel said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Kimmel’s comment was likely referring to Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s comments that the suspect, Tyler Robinson, had a “leftist ideology” and had also been in a romantic relationship with his roommate and alleged partner, who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. Cox’s inclusion of these comments makes me agree with Kimmel that investigators appear to be desperately trying to pin Kirk’s death on an out-of-control Democrat motivated by his alleged tie to the trans community, which demonstrates Republicans’ willingness to stretch the narrative to find a connection to the trans community.

It is also important to note Governor Cox made these remarks despite the reality that Robinson is a native Utah resident, is not registered to any political party, and grew up with conservative parents in St. George, a fast-growing conservative city defined by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus, Kimmel’s comment did not attack Kirk at all; instead, it questioned the bias regarding the investigation of Kirk’s alleged shooter.

Whether I agree with Kimmel or not, I believe it is not appropriate to silence his speech. Just as the overwhelming conservative response to Kirk’s death demonstrated how many people think of gun violence as bad only when it affects someone they agree with and care about, the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! highlights how some conservatives condone attacks on freedom of speech when it benefits them and their party. Furthermore, please note ABC decided to pull the program after an unusually threatening comment was made by the Federal Communications Commission’s chair.

The First Amendment is supposed to apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of their political views and who they would like to criticize, including the President of the United States. It was not meant to be revoked when public figures say things attacking the government or certain political parties. Hence, the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, despite how short it may have been, is extremely important; these two events are instances of our current administration taking creative liberty with the First Amendment by pressuring television networks to conform to the liking and opinions of President Donald Trump.

Additionally, it is essential that we, as college students, acknowledge these systematic attacks on freedom of speech and strive to combat them to preserve our right to free expression, which is not only crucial to our day-to-day lives but also vital for our education and the ability to have a well-rounded and informed understanding.

Free Speech Under Attack

by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on September 18, 2025

Opinion

Nationally and On Campus

On Wednesday, Sept. 10, the illusion of free speech in America was shattered. Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist whose messaging was aimed at the youth of America, was shot and ultimately killed in what I deem a political assassination. Many disagreed with Kirk’s strong and sometimes controversial opinions, but in no way does that mean he should have died because of them. Not only was this event a tragedy, but it was also a turning point for America and for how we think about speech and political disagreement.

For all the weight we give the First Amendment, it feels less like a guarantee of free speech and more like a guarantee of conflict and violence. This is not just about one man, but rather about whether college campuses can be considered safe places for debate and disagreement. College campuses are historically supposed to be institutions that allow free thought to flourish, and spaces where students can express ideas, hear perspectives they disagree with, and form independent opinions based on their perceptions.

Reality on campus, and in society in general, is much messier. Many students claim they believe in free speech, but when met with controversial views, the instinct is to “cancel” them, which effectively suppresses our freedom. Social media acts as a catalyst for this problem. Platforms popularly used on college campuses, such as YikYak, Instagram, or X (formerly Twitter), turn disagreement into mob shaming where free speech is not met with dialogue but with hostility and ridicule.

The Kirk incident forces us to ponder a deeper question: what happens when words are no longer met with words, but with intimidation, threats, and even outward violence? On college campuses, free speech now carries a price tag, ranging from at best, backlash, to at worst, life itself. The fact is, PC is not immune.

While our campus may not face violence on the scale of the Kirk assassination, the underlying problem is still here, simmering beneath the surface. Apps like YikYak, which thrive on anonymity, create spaces where hostility and hate can spread unchecked. Instead of encouraging honest debate, they often promote mockery, hate, and dehumanization. I’ve seen firsthand how, in the context of Kirk’s death, conversations on our campus have not always leaned towards respectful disagreement, but rather snide comments and outright hate. This doesn’t just poison our school community, it undermines the very freedom of speech we claim to value. If we want PC to be a place where free thought can flourish, then we cannot afford to dismiss this culture as harmless online venting or say that these snide comments are normal.

The death of Kirk is a national tragedy, but the lessons it forces upon us cannot only be heard at a national level. Free speech isn’t some lofty ideal we only talk about in theory, but rather something that plays out day after day in our classrooms, our group chats, and on social media. The right to free speech means nothing if our culture punishes anyone who dares to use it. Here at PC, we cannot pretend we’re immune.