

Little ribbons caused big controversy in Litchfield, Connecticut.
For almost 20 years, yellow ribbons adorned the town square’s trees. But in January, the warden quietly took them down. The locals aren’t happy.
Why? It has to do with free speech.
As early as the time of North America’s Puritan colonies, yellow ribbons symbolized support for loved ones away at war. Today, the symbol lives on, honoring military members serving far from home.
These yellow ribbons were placed in the Litchfield Town Green in 2003, during the war in Iraq. Litchfield officials aren’t concerned about what the ribbons mean. They care about what else could happen if the ribbons stay.
“When it comes to a public space like that, if you allow some speech you have to allow all speech,” says acting Warden Gayle Carr, who removed the ribbons herself. If Litchfield allows a good message, like that of the ribbons, then the town must allow every type of message. Maybe even bad ones. Otherwise, it’s discrimination. Litchfield would be choosing what people can say, and that’s against the law.
So how can Litchfield prevent bad messages without discrimination? It’s easy: Don’t allow any messages in the Town Green at all—at least, not permanent messages like signs, placards, and yellow ribbons. Litchfield residents can still express military support in the Town Green with marches, vigils, and picket signs.
But to some residents, that’s not enough. They call the ribbon removal a slap in the face to military personnel and their families. For them, these five yellow ribbons—one for each branch of the military—carry a deep meaning.
The yellow ribbons have caused controversy before. Litchfield also tried to remove them in 2009, leading to a local uproar and national news coverage. Town officials agreed to let five ribbons remain. In 2012, they attempted to remove all but one of the ribbons. Again, residents spoke out, and the ribbons stayed until this year.
Are the ribbons now gone for good? That’s up to Litchfield to decide.
The United States has laws to protect free speech. The Bible says that death and life are in the power of the tongue. (Proverbs 18:21) Free speech is a powerful thing. People can use it for good—such as honoring those who serve their nation—or they can use it for evil.
To the officials of Litchfield, the right to post signs and ribbons in the Town Green has too much power for evil. It’s safer to ban such speech altogether.
But if it’s that safe, is it still free?
Why? Free speech always carries risk, but it still is a right that must be protected. People can be so afraid of bad speech that they also silence good speech.
Actions have consequences. Click to see a bubble map that shows how one event (town officials removing yellow ribbons, for example) can lead to another.
first comment
ha ha I can say first comment for the first time! anyways this is just sad. i understand why there doing it but if they don't protect the freedom of speach then when bad things happen, they won't have that.
2nd!
Thats mean
Bubble Map
Hi everyone! I think maybe there would be a court case for the next bubble. What do you all think would happen next?
this is insane
this is insane
@Sara D
I think maybe Litchfield could have a town meeting and debate it. or just have a vote.
It seems that same basic
It seems that same basic argument is applied to a lot of stuff. Guns are bad, therefore nobody should get to have them. Property is bad, because people do bad things with it, therefore we should take it from the people who have, and give it to those who don't. Like, going back to the guns argument, bad guys are gonna get their guns, whether or not we have them. Same thing. Bad ppl are gonna say bad things, regardless of some law restricting one of our rights. Y'know?
This is JENNA @Hesperus D
I agree with your statement so I'm going to add a little to that. The town's primary argument is that by having the ribbons they are allowing freedom of speech. So that means that they are allowing all forms of speech, be it good or bad. BUT by not allowing the ribbons they are essentially disallowing the freedom of speech. So in the end they have done the very thing that they were "trying to prevent" .
@J&O S
Yeah, I can kinda see what your saying there. And honestly, yeah, that's the other side of the coin. We either, A, allow ppl to say whatever they (and allow them to reap the consequences for it; I think we kinda overlook that part of free speech) or B, we restrict all free speech, and that's now how America was designed.