Can Universities Charge Security Fees to Campus Groups for Hosting Controversial Speakers?
When University of Washington College Republicans invited conservative activist Joey Gibson to speak on campus, they did not expect to be charged with a $17,000 security fee to ensure that the rally would not get out of hand. The College Republicans sued to proceed with the event which led to clashes, counter protests and several arrests. A letter penned by Professor Eric Schnapper and endorsed by 22 others makes a First Amendment case to protect the right of the College Republicans and other similar groups. University of Washington law professor and Concurring Opinions writer Ronald K.L. Collins states, "the UW Law letter provides an informative guide to much of the existing law concerning free speech rights and security fees. In that regard, it should be useful to college administrators, lawyers representing colleges, lawyers representing students and speakers, and to student organizations in general, among others."
Conservative Speaker Heckled at CUNY Law Raising Campus Speech Concerns
Recently CUNY Law students shouted down Professor Josh Blackman causing debate among First Amendment scholars. In our Spotlight on campus speech, "Lessons from Berkeley on Campus Free Speech" we discuss how U.S. campuses have been hotbeds of political and social debate since the colonial era. By the 1960s, rising civil unrest buoyed the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley. As protests spread, universities and law enforcement cracked down leading to fatalities in separate incidents at Kent State University and Jackson State University. Today campus protests are once again eliciting an escalated police presence. Both public and private universities are struggling how to balance the free exchange of ideas, but public universities have a legal obligation to protect campus freedom of expression. What does this mean for students, campus free speech and speaker’s right to free speech when it is suppressed by the fear of disruption?
Gene Policinski Commentary: Sinclair, Next Time Just Put Your Name To The Message
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on April 5, 2018, on the Newseum blog, and has given First Amendment Watch permission to reprint. Sinclair […]
What is the State of Academic Freedom As More Professors Face Increasing Backlash?
An NPR report finds that “across the country, in the past year and a half, at least 250 university professors…have been targeted via online campaigns because of their research, their […]
National Constitution Center Hosts U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Constitutional Scholars Including FAW’s Stephen Solomon in a Discussion on Hate Speech First, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey […]
Are Student Walkouts Protected By the First Amendment?
After the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students around the country quickly began to protest gun violence. One way gaining much attention: student walkouts. School administrators have responded both positively and negatively to these demonstrations. Now various advocacy groups are calling for a national walkout for 17 minutes at 10 a.m. March 14 in solidarity with the victims of the Florida tragedy. Are these protests protected by the First Amendment?
Our guest writer and constitutional law scholar, Catherine Ross, speaks out about the student protests rocking the nation from the March 14 walkouts to the March for our Our Lives movement and looking ahead to the next planned protests on April 20th. Her book, Lessons in Censorship: How Schools and Courts Subvert Students' First Amendment Rights, excerpted on FAW looks at important free speech issues relevant to today's movement.
Did White House Staff Sign Away Their First Amendment Rights?
The Washington Post reports that senior White House staffers in President Trump's administration were asked to sign long-term nondisclosure agreements which would prevent them from revealing confidential information. These agreements extended beyond the normal confidentiality obligations around classified information or attorney-client privilege and included fines if they were broken.