My interest in free expression began in my first year of law school. We were assigned to write an appellate brief in which we examined student speech and the constitutional limits on public schools. Through that process, I engaged deeply with Tinker v. Des Moines, a case that not only shaped my understanding of the First Amendment but also made the principles of student expression feel immediate and real. The idea that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” resonated with me, particularly given my own experiences working in school settings. That interest extended beyond the page. I was inspired to reach out to John Tinker himself and helped facilitate an opportunity for him to speak at my law school. In our discussion, I learned more about what drove him to activism as a student and how his involvement as the named plaintiff shaped the rest of his life. That experience pushed me to think more critically about how free expression operates beyond the classroom and into broader legal frameworks. It ultimately led me to write my law review note, in which I explored the intersection of free speech and Tennessee procedural law. Specifically, I focused on how the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA) functions alongside the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and whether procedural mechanisms adequately protect individuals from lawsuits that may chill speech. This project required me to analyze how constitutional values are translated, and sometimes constrained, through procedural rules. Through this work, I became increasingly interested in the tension between protecting reputation and preserving open discourse. While defamation law serves an important purpose, I found that procedural barriers can sometimes undermine the protective intent of statutes like the TPPA. Examining these issues in the Tennessee context allowed me to see how state-level legal structures can either reinforce or weaken First Amendment protections in practice. More broadly, my legal studies have reinforced my belief that free expression is foundational to democratic participation and accountability. My academic work has allowed me to move from theory to application: first through my appellate brief, then through direct engagement with a key figure in First Amendment history, and finally through sustained scholarly analysis in my law review note. Each of these experiences has deepened my commitment to understanding and protecting free speech. As I continue my legal education, I hope to build on this foundation by further exploring how procedural and substantive law interact to shape the boundaries of expression. My interest in free expression is not only academic, but practical. I am committed to ensuring that legal systems meaningfully protect the right to speak, particularly in contexts where that right is most vulnerable.