Annalise Robbins, a graduating senior from Lemon Bay High School, has won the 2026 “Our Living Democracy” Award. This honor comes with a $1,000 scholarship from the Englewood Democratic Club, which she’ll use toward her college tuition next year. Annalise is heading to the University of Florida to major in biology.
Her winning essay, “Free Speech: Our Right and Responsibility,” stood out in a contest that challenges students to reflect on the First Amendment, explore the importance of freedom of speech, and consider possible limitations, especially on social media.
Besides being a scholarship winner, Annalise is also the designer behind Charlotte County’s 2024 presidential election “I Voted” sticker, which she calls a “fun accomplishment.”
Reflecting on her award, Annalise said, “I am very excited to see the Englewood community investing in the future of my classmates and me, and am truly grateful to have my essay selected by the Englewood Democratic Club.”
This year’s judges were Michael P. Haymans, a Punta Gorda attorney and host of “Building a Zoo”; Joyce Colmar, attorney, founder of the Dearborn Street Farmer’s Market, and board member of the North Manasota Key Association; and Linda DeMeritt, retired provost and Professor of German at Allegheny College, who remains active with the Symphonic Winds of Charlotte County.
To compete for the award, students submitted essays between 1,000 and 1,800 words on the significance of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, their respect for their neighbors’ rights, and how or if they’d set limits, especially on social media. Annalise delivered, and now her voice joins a broader conversation about democracy and free speech.
Congratulations to Annalise Robbins, and enjoy reading her award-winning essay.
Free speech: Our Right and Responsibility
As citizens of the United States of America, our right to the freedom of speech is granted to us through the First Amendment of the Constitution which states that the legislative branch must refrain from “abridging the freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental liberties that our country guarantees to each of its citizens, but it is a right truly defined by each citizen through how they utilize it with respect to the rights of their fellow citizens.
The primary reasoning for the framers of the Constitution ensuring freedom of speech is grounded in their experiences at the hands of other governments. The American colonists’ revolt against Britain to form a new union displayed to them the value of being able to stand independently for one’s own beliefs. Allowing for the uninhibited spread of beliefs and opinions allows for change to take place. This was especially significant to Americans around the time of the revolution because they were relying on new ideas to make dramatic changes in their government systems, but embracing the necessity of free speech also means comprehending the importance of respecting other people’s right to free speech as well. Placing value in the words of others allows for solutions to be discovered. If no debate could be had over decisions, the vast majority of the most valuable ideas could never even be suggested. The action of respecting freedom of speech for all people is an act of humility. It is the American citizen’s responsibility and action to sacrifice their pride in their own ideas and to listen to those of another.
Despite these original intentions for the freedom of speech, modern day perceptions present it differently. Rather than using our right as a tool to find the most effective solutions, it is often used as a means of justifying ourselves. When someone receives some sort of criticism for a statement that they have made, their freedom of speech is often what they use to defend their remark. Through this tendency to lean on our right only as an argument for speaking to others in an uncivil manner, our freedom of speech has begun to appear more as an excuse than an opportunity. Perceiving it in this manner ignores the need for the right of others to be equally respected. Avoiding criticism and insisting to always be correct fails to display an understanding that respecting others’ ideas often allows us to reach stronger and wiser decisions.
The limitations on freedom of speech have also become skewed. Although constitutionally speech must remain entirely free, during the course of our country’s history Supreme court rulings have allowed for the freedom of speech to be limited when it directly causes, or is meant to cause, danger or illegal actions in some way. More recently, the dispute over limiting freedom of speech has become significant in its relation to censoring social media. Extreme censorship is viewed as a violation of the American citizen’s right to exercise their freedom of speech on these platforms. Alternatively, insufficient censorship is perceived as the government disregarding the limits placed on free speech that inspires crime or violence. Because of this modern and divided understanding of free speech, its limitations are less clear than they have been in the past. In this debate, what must also be considered is the role of the government compared to the responsibility of the social media platforms. Although social media is used to express free speech, it is not a government entity. Social media platforms are privately owned. Because of this, I would argue, the extent of free speech provided must be left up to the platform. Citizens are accepting these conditions through their use of the platform. The government should only overrule the platform’s decisions if the content incites danger, or if the limitations are disproportionate, meaning censoring one viewpoint to a greater extent than another.
The greater issue is the fear of speaking our minds. As technology advances and our ability to communicate with others becomes increasingly instantaneous, we have significantly more access to opposing ideas. This enhanced meshing of extreme opinions from every viewpoint creates a sort of tension in regards to self-expression. The harshly argumentative debates, public shaming, and “cancel culture” contribute to our tendency to subconsciously suppress our own freedom of speech. Though constitutionally, we are not restricted from participating in these discussions, our fear can be a powerful discouragement. This, more than legal restrictions, does not align with the freedom of speech that we have been granted. The true purpose of free speech depends, not only on respecting others’ freedom, but also regarding one’s own contribution as equally legitimate and valuable. Speaking despite substantial opposition is not a sign of failure or weakness. It is by this very action that our nation was formed and is improved over time. In order for our nation to achieve the full potential that free speech allows for, we must understand that as United States citizens it is both our right and our responsibility to express our views, even when it is difficult to contribute.
