Walking around campus during rush hours, you will notice a wide range of people wearing a variety of outfits. Recently, I’ve begun to notice the existence of Clunky Trainers, often by the distinctive thud of the heavy shoe sole hitting the pavement. Being somewhat of a fashion expert myself with a very diverse selection of sweatshirts and sweatpants in my closet, I can’t help but imagine the different styles that I can potentially pair with the Clunky Trainers. To my dismay, I couldn’t find any. In fact, I cannot imagine myself wearing a pair. However, the high-frequency of sightings of these clunky trainers, made me hesitant to speak up. I was afraid of getting prosecuted by the clunky trainer gang being criticized for my radical views. A few days later, I noticed a sign in front of the Dr.Sesus library (shown in picture). I was surprised that someone shared my views, but I was more so amazed by his/her bravery for standing up against the unyielding fashion trend. I questioned maybe I should join their good cause.

*The writing above is a dramatization of certain actual events. Some of the events have been changed for dramatic and comedic purposes.

Thankfully, in modern society, we do not have to live in constant fear of saying something wrong. The First Amendment of the US Consitution protected our freedom of speech/expression.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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”

–– The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment I

The First Amendment implied that Congress should not limit people’s freedom of speech, press, and assembly. This is a fundamental right that we often overlooked. We are lucky we live in a society/country where this is defined as a fundamental right. Putting up a poster and wearing clunky trainers are both forms of expressing themselves. Neither of those actions should be punished if the legal system is just. We can express our dislike or criticism of the different fashion, like the character(s) in the story, yet we should do no harm to opposers. This also connects well with Rousseau’s state of nature or Locke’s fundamental human rights. It is certainly interesting how the majority, including many great philosophers, seem to agree on the fundamental right of the freedom of speech, if not freedom in general. However, debates often arise in what constitutes freedom? To what extent should we have an extent? How can we balance freedom and the general welfare? How should we be defining harm? physical harm is obvious, but what about psychological harm? Are there moral cases where freedom should be limited or even, taken away? Is freedom absolute or situational, if so, how do we come to a consensus on different scenarios?