Reader’s Comment on Campus Free Speech Zones

1. Because it is a public university, USI should feel a particular obligation to encourage free and open discussion in and out of the classroom.

   Freedom of expression to all, even if I disagree with it.

   • Because USI is an institution of learning, USI should take special care to teach American political values. Does USI have a pre-law program?

2. I have a theory as to the intent and reasoning behind USI creating a free speech zone and their possible exemption to granting 1st amendment rights to the students on campus.

   First a little background into exemptions….

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

   Pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

   Excerpt….

   Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.
   _____________________

   In the above paragraph I believe is the basis for their perceived right to limit a student’s 1st amendment rights, in this case the government (through the surrogate (collage) ) is a educator ie “controls education” and can place restrictions.

   Then there is this…..

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Government_as_Educator

   And a very small excerpt……

   Government as Educator

   When the Government acts as a Kindergarten through twelfth grade educator, they are allowed to restrict speech in certain instances. The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) that only when speech “materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school”. Later court decisions added more situations where restrictions were possible, including student speech about drugs,”vulgar and offensive” language, and school-operated newspapers. The primary basis for the educator-distinction is based on the concept of in loco parentis, the principle that the school functions as parents over the students, thus allowing broader discretion in limiting student speech and expression
   ___________________

   So there you have one possible reason that the collage my be forced or pressured by the FED to create a “free speech zone” or maybe just the board being proactive and feel that they are doing the students a service by creating a designated place to assemble and voice concerns. Without actually talking to someone at USI it is impossible to discern if it was mandated (by the DOE (department of education)) or just someones rather flaky idea of protection.

   I guess it could be argued that USI is a state collage, but in my mind to be exempt from the DOE and FED dictating policy, rules, ideas, etc you would have to never accept federal money which we all know really is impossible.

   *(sorry for the small cut n’ paste but I felt it was necessary to make a valid point…and it is from Wikipedia which is part of the creative commons and can be legally used in whole or in part without license)

   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

   JMHO

   • When I was an undergraduate student at UE I do not recall any protests of any kind and the only political discussions on campus were among Arab students and that was mostly about the Iranian hostage situation. I always felt free to speak my mind about anything. The absence of political activism was just the nature of the student body.

     In grad school at Stanford it was very different. There were always people on a soapbox regarding some political or other situations. I even joined a group called Mandella Free University to demand that Stanford divest its money from South Africa until Nelson Mandella was freed from Robbin Island prison. Eventually he was freed and South Africa abolished apartheid. It was done from outside pressure and divestment. Being able to protest freely was a great lesson for those of us who did it and for those who chose to observe. We never disrupted a class or event. It was a healthy exercise in democracy and international relations. All campuses should be so free.

   • None of that would apply. College students would not fall under the same category as students in high school because they are all adults who are above the legal age of adulthood. There is no “parental” element. They are involved in a free transaction with the University for their services.

     As for the free speech zone at USI… As a grassroots leader for the Ron Paul campaign, we had a guy try to collect petition signatures to get Dr. Paul on the Indiana ballot. He was told by USI people he had to stay within this one 10 foot square “free speech zone”, which incidentally was completely off the beaten path of students, making the whole enterprise of collecting signatures moot.

     The Vanderburgh County Library system also tried to kick us off their property for peacefully collecting signatures on our petitions outside their buildings… They were quickly corrected on this, however, when we threatened to sue them. To their credit, they have since changed their policies on free speech and petitions, allowing them outside their buildings. Someone else will probably have to fight the fight in the future if they want to petition inside.

     • This is one example of what I was speaking to yesterday … that political activists have told me on several occasions that USI has forbidden or restricted their free expression of politics on campus whether by denying them the ability to distribute or display political materials or, in Brad Linzy’s case, collect signatures on a legitimate ballot question.

       Again, I wonder if these restrictions of free speech would hold up in court considering the extent to which the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of political free speech.

     • Oh I agree Brad, just trying to give one possible reasons for their “free speech zone”, in your example (Ron Paul petition) you stated that the zone was a 10′ x 10′ square off the beaten path, seems like a rather small area designed to contain a very small group, given the size of the student body at USI it doesn’t leave much room for any type of group gathering which is I guess the intent.

       Still it would be beneficial to hear from USI on their reasoning and intent. 🙂

       JMHO

3. Having attended a funeral where the Jonesboro Church people were present, I can verify that people are exceedingly tolerant of free speech in this country nowadays.

   I can just imagine what would have happened to these Jonesboro people if they had shown up during the civil war for the funeral of a soldier on either side of that conflict, or WWII for that matter.

   __

   • Veterans groups and motorcycle clubs have rendered the Jonesboro wingnuts practically invisible on several occasions, Evansville being one example. But in that case, I think the EPD’s “free speech zone” on the Civic Center campus across the street from the Centre was more for the wingnut’s protection from crowd reaction than to protect the funeral procession from the disgusting messages on the wingnut placards.

4. I remember a couple of years when the Director of the Vanderburgh County Building Authority, Dave Rector tryed to keep the tea party group for taking signs into city coucil meetings. CCO challenged Mr. Rectors policy about taking signs to meetings at the civic center. Rector dropped his policy and tea party people were allowed to take signs in meetings!

   Once again, another example of how “Freedom of Speech” wins only when people challenges the authorities!

5. Dear Editor

   This is a worthy cause you are addressing. I have read a number of scholar and legal dissertations on First Amendment rights, and I think that USI is violating the spirit and intent of that, and possibly the actual law itself.

   Thanks for bringing this to peoples attention.

   Out of curiosity, have you asked for a comment from Dr. Linda Bennett yet? She is very approachable and open to discussions. I would think the courteous thing to do would be to hear from her as the President of USI. I know there are legal aspects of the creation of “free speech zones”, and if USI cannot readily describe and enumerate the reasoning for this, I think they would be in violation of the First Amendment.

   And while I would never want any trouble for USI, being a crown jewel in Vanderburgh County as a wonderfully diverse college,has anyone contacted Ken Falk of the Indiana ACLU chapter? I would imagine they would have a keen interest in this new “regulation”.

   Yes, I do agree with you on certain things, and the violation of the First Amendment is something I have spent a lot of time researching. It is a basic part of why your attitude about censoring online comments you disagree with causes me so much annoyance.

   Take a look at this Amicus brief:

   https://www.eff.org/files/miller_amicus.pdf

   I would direct you to look at this and consider it. Three paragraphs stand out:

   Anonymous commentary on public affairs has a rich and storied tradition in our nation’s history. The Founders, through anonymous works such as the Federalist Papers, shared their visions for a society based on freedom of expression, assembly, and religion. These anonymous works were the sounding boards for the freedoms later enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

   Indiana now provides even stronger protection for free expression than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution broadly guarantees “the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever.” Under the state Constitution, on matters of general public concern or interest, Indiana courts now provide even stronger protection under the “actual malice” doctrine than that required under the First Amendment. Indiana law, through its “anti-SLAPP” statute, furnishes further sanctuary for free speakers and publishers by fostering early disposition of unwarranted defamation lawsuits and providing for an award of attorney’s fees against plaintiffs seeking to chill public criticism.

   “Online” forums..afford all citizens…with enhanced ability to voice opinions on matters of current concern to their communities. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, Internet chat rooms permit anyone to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates further than it could from any soapbox.” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). Because the Internet has become a modern town square, courts uniformly require a heightened evidentiary showing from the subpoenaing party prior to stripping anonymous Internet speakers of their anonymity.

   You comments from a prior article about “you own the CC and you can do what you want” is a slap in the face of the First Amendment and journalism ethics. While you may not like certain comments, how can you hold your site to be a “newspaper” if you do not allow free expression of opinions, even when those opinions differ from your own? I am trying to be fair, but you seem to make up rules as you go on why you delete certain posts, and I would feel confident in stating that in pretty much all instances your deletion of comments was based on the issue that people disagreed with you, so you just deleted their comments.

   How does that make you any different from what USI is doing? They establish a “free speech zone”, and you establish a pattern of deleting comments that do not agree with you and have the temerity to say “we own the CCO and can do what we want”.

   I look forward to hearing what you say about this.

   • The biggest difference in the CCO and USI is that we are privately owned and they are a public entity established by the state and dependent upon the state for operating funds. Deleting that we have done has not been because of disagreement. We have seen comments in the 5,000 or so numbers and have only removed between 10 and 20. Personal threats are removed and there have been some, foul language is removed because some readers are offended by it, and there have been a very few comments removed for being denigrating or so long that it dominates the space with volume. We really do not like taking things down.

     • My personal belief is not centered on the difference between private ownership and a public institution.

       As I indicated in my earlier post, the CCO describes itself as being a newspaper. As such, do you not have a duty to “report and let the people decide”?

       I agree 100% on your stance that threats and offensive language have no place on CCO or any website.

       In terms of your issue with comment length, why not do as most major forums have have a text or character limit? That is a simple HTML function to do a character count. By advertising and enforcing that sort of issue you provide guidance to ALL people who comment. The way you are stating it would seem to mean that a comment length is at your discretion, and that is really not fair, is it? This means that you just might leave lengthy comments from people what you agree with, but at the same time cut off people who disagree with your position.

       In terms of fairness, just the other day you removed a number of comments that you stated “Reporting articles is forbidden. You may post links”. I have yet to get an answer from you of where that is a violation of the CCO Terms of Service. The article you stated that on was comprised of a complete cut and paste from a West Coast newspaper editorial, and at the bottom you stated “Source: Orange County Register, Ron Hart”. I have to wonder if you had an agreement to post that entire editorial without violating copyright rules.

       I am doing my best to discuss this politely, but I would once again ask that you explain where on your website there is a rule stating that an article cannot be posted, that only a link can be placed. I know that I personally work VERY hard at making sure that anything that I post from another website that I put it into quotes and cite the source.

       I once again look forward to hearing your explanation

6. Read Gilles vs. Blanchard, a United states 7th Circuit court of appeals case. The 7th circuit upheld Vincennes University’s right to have a free speech zone.

   http://educationlaw.org/pdf/members/07AprSLR-1C.pdf

7. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance that prohibited all residential signs, except those falling within certain specific exemptions such as small “residential identification” signs and signs advertising the sale, lease, or exchange of property. The Court concluded that the ordinance violated the First Amendment’s free speech protection by suppressing too much speech. [City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36; 1994]

   I’m not sure how the City of Ladue v Gilleo decision might affect a state university’s restriction of free speech rights, however.

   • Here’s another that might be relevent: U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983): Law enacted by Congress, prohibiting demonstrations on the sidewalks around the U.S. Supreme Court building, was unconstitutional. Sidewalks are “traditional public forums” where, by long cultural tradition, people have expressed their views.
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0487_0474_ZO.html

   • I am very familiar with that decision.

     The crux of that case dealt with a zoning issue, and the same issue applies to us in Evansville.

     If you want to put out a sign that is 100×100 (silly, but I am making a point) and on it you state you hate/love something, that is protected by the First Amendment.

     However, if that sign is commercial in ANY fashion, then local zoning codes apply. Business signs are not allowed in residential areas with only very (and I mean VERY) minor instances. For example, I think locally you can have a 2×2 sign if you have a home based business where you are the only employee (like a home beauty parlor).

     What is NOT legal that escapes punishment is all the bandit signs that people put in their yards advertising “Remodeling By Joe” or something like that. You are NOT allowed to advertise a commercial enterprise in your residential yard. If you want 100 election signs in your front yard, go for it. But commercial advertising is regulated, and that was the foundation of this Court csse

8. Anyone of intelligence knows that if someone can arbitrarily choose the locations where you may and may not speak, then there is no such thing a “free speech”.

   Shame on the University of Southern Indiana for even considering such an abridgement of the freedoms our founders guaranteed us in their amendments to our constitution.

   ____

Comments are closed.