Virginia Bans Campus Free Speech Zones as Unconstitutional
Congratulations to Governor Terry McAuliffe and the Virginia General Assembly for respecting the free speech rights of college students.
The FIRE reports.
Virginia Bans Unconstitutional Campus ‘Free Speech Zones’
RICHMOND, Va., April 7, 2014—On Friday, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed a bill into law effectively designating outdoor areas on the Commonwealth’s public college campuses as public forums, where student speech is subject only to reasonable, content- and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Under this new law, college students at Virginia’s public universities will not be limited to expressing themselves in tiny “free speech zones” or subject to unreasonable registration requirements.
HB 258, championed by its lead patron Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, passed both houses of the Virginia General Assembly unanimously. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) urged the passage of the bill and testified on behalf of the legislation in hearings in both legislative houses.
“FIRE thanks Governor McAuliffe, Delegate Lingamfelter, and all of Virginia’s delegates and senators for coming together and supporting this legislation,” said FIRE Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn. “One in six public colleges in the United States unjustly restricts student speech with free speech zones. Thanks to this new law, public institutions in Virginia will no longer be among them.”
Restricting student speech to tiny “free speech zones” diminishes the quality of debate and discussion on campus by preventing expression from reaching its target audience. Often, institutions that maintain these restrictive policies also employ burdensome permitting schemes that require students to obtain administrative permission days or even weeks before being allowed to speak their minds. Even worse, many of these policies grant campus administrators unfettered discretion to deny applications based on the viewpoint or content of the speakers’ intended message.
Comments
Huh?! This sounds like it is VERY limiting on free speech. Who decides what is “reasonable” or “content-neutral” or “viewpoint neutral” regarding time(s), place(s), and manner?
The one who defines and controls those terms controls free speech! Indeed, they seem to be as restrictive, or even more restrictive, than before – certainly more than FIRE seems to think, given this statement on the prior “free speech zones” policies:
If Terry McAuliffe signed it, then I doubt it is good. He is a crook, a liar, and a Clinton tool – there is a rat in this somewhere, and I believe that first quote is it.
McAuliffe signed this? It can’t be good. Democrats have no idea of what is free speech.
Restricting student speech to tiny “free speech zones” diminishes the quality of debate and discussion on campus by preventing expression from reaching its target audience.
Actually, there’s some genuine benefit in the concept of “free speech zones”, because “free speech” itself is such a broad concept. For the past fifty years (at least, perhaps far more) free speech has meant (to some) the right to deny free speech to others. Or, more accurately, making it impossible for others to be heard, which has the same result. And this is done by talking over them, more insistently or more loudly, drowning them out with bullhorns, drum circles, or unscheduled music festivals.
How to handle such abuse? A free speech zone allows officialdom to herd such abusive parties into a limited area where they are still free to make as much noise as they wish, and audiences are free to listen if they so choose, but they won’t disrupt anyone else’s free speech. A pretty good idea, really.
Naturally, it can be abused. But so can any good idea. Locating the “free speech zone” fifty miles away would be abuse. So would locating it half a mile away. But a couple of hundred yards away from someone else’s scheduled event, well, maybe that’s not a fatal curtailment of a bunch of hecklers’ right to heckle as they see fit. It would be an infringement of their right to disrupt. But they don’t have any such right.