Black Lives Matter

In 2010, two white students who scattered white cotton balls in front of the Black Culture Center during Black History Month were allowed to plead guilty to littering ...

She recalled jogging along a road in May when a white man in a truck flying a Confederate flag stopped, spat at her, called out a racist slur and sped off ...

The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.

In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.[/quot
e]

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/two-law-professors-aclu-of-missouri-believe-mu-police-suggestion/article_4ace3e90-87fe-11e5-bb9e-a34ae35e0a79.html

COLUMBIA — After the MU Police Department said Tuesday that students and staff should call them after hearing "hateful and/or hurtful speech," two attorneys took issue with the suggestion.

The department, in its email, said: "While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes, if the individual(s) identified are students, MU's Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action."

Sandy Davidson, an adjunct professor at the MU School of Law who teaches communications law, said that the email could lead to infringement of First Amendment rights.

"You can't restrict free speech based on concepts of decency," Davidson said. "The First Amendment is not to protect 'pretty' speech; it's designed to protect offensive speech."

Gregory Magarian, a Washington University in St. Louis law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, said the vagueness of the email is problematic. The email only says that students should report "hateful and/or hurtful speech," but doesn't define what that is.

"One cardinal rule in law on deciding what speech can be restricted is: Don't be vague," Magarian said. "If you are trying to strike the balance between what is restricted and what is not, you can't be vague and you can't leave authorities with too much latitude to interpret what speech is OK, and what speech is not."

Magarian said that there could be a "chilling effect" on free speech at MU.

He said that when speech is restricted, but it's not clear which speech is restricted, people are more cautious about what they say.

"It's important to make sure you don't chill, punish or deter speech that is protected and (speech) that doesn't fall into that zone of being threatening or unduly aggressive," Magarian said.

On Tuesday night, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri voiced its "disappointment" in the new MU Police Department initiative.

"The ACLU of Missouri is disappointed with the recent request by the University of Missouri Police to report ‘hurtful speech,’ which simultaneously does too much and too little," Jeffrey Mittman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "Racial epithets addressed to a specific person in a threatening or intimidating manner can be illegal, and may require action by police and/or university administrators. But, no governmental entity has the authority to broadly prohibit ‘hurtful’ speech — or even undefined ‘hateful’ speech, or to discipline against it."

Magarian said though he is not an expert on university discipline, he's puzzled as to why calling the police would be encouraged when no crime is committed.

"Intuitively, you would think that if an incident happens on campus that's not a crime, then that should go to the university first," Magarian said. "And then, if the incident is of such outrageous conduct that it's illegal, too, then the university would refer it to law enforcement."

He added, "Whenever police get involved in any kind of action against someone's conduct, or behavior of speech, it ups the ante — the police are involved, that's serious stuff. And the fact that police are taking the lead here, maybe they're trying to send the message that the university takes this stuff seriously, but it seems like an odd place to start."

MU has definite race problems, but the new suggestion isn't the best way to handle the problem, Magarian said.

"This is not how to handle this problem in the best way," he said. "The vagueness of the terms, and the way the process works as described in the email is a real problem for some people who want to say things within their First Amendment rights."

Davidson took issue with the accuracy of the email itself. The email states that harmful and hurtful speech isn't illegal, but that's not always the case, Davidson said.

"If you put a person in fear of his or her own life, that is a crime," Davidson said. "The email is too broadly stated when it says 'cases of hateful and/or hurtful speech are not crimes.'"

She cited the Missouri Peace Disturbance Statute, which states when someone's free speech can be restricted. Included in this statute is "offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient."

Davidson said she understands the intent to make MU a more pleasant place, but the freedom of speech still exists.

"At a state university, you do have a right to free, even offensive speech," she said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I might get a punch in the nose

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/19/speech-codes-the-biggest-scandal-on-college-campuses-today/

Believe it or not, 62 percent of colleges having “red light” speech codes is actually an improvement. In 2007, it was 75 percent. Progress has been made. But given that universities have been sued at least 22 times since 1989—with virtually every challenge leading to the university either settling and withdrawing its code or losing in court—why do speech codes persist?

There are four major factors that explain the tenacity of speech codes. First is the misguided belief that campuses must protect students, faculty, and administrators from offense of all kinds. Second is the dramatic expansion in the administrative class at universities over the past few decades. Third is ignorance among these armies of administrators of both First Amendment law and, perhaps more importantly, the moral principles and philosophy upon which that law is based.

Yet the fourth factor—fear of liability—may be most determinative. College lawyers incorrectly believe that speech codes can be a prophylactic measure against lawsuits for harassment or discrimination. This is wrong. Maintaining broad and vague speech codes won’t stave off lawsuits, and universities may easily prohibit true harassment while protecting free expression by adopting policies that track existing legal definitions. Yet speech codes persist in large part because university general counsels, often far more worried about the expense and bad press of a harassment lawsuit than the comparatively rare and inexpensive free speech lawsuit, have deemed it rational from a cost-benefit standpoint to censor.

FIRE has attempted to change this calculus by coordinating lawsuits over the years with cooperating attorneys, every single one of which has been successful in getting the speech code withdrawn, defeated, or reformed. Yet there has been only an incremental improvement in the number of schools that maintain speech codes. The fact that unconstitutional speech codes are still commonplace on college campuses is a scandal that should no longer be tolerated.

Greg Lukianoff is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).


Comment on this story
Report Corrections

Fire is a fairly left wing outfit for you to be quoting!!!!!!

Once more a direct threat of violence have never been protected speech but that if not what the speech codes on college campuses are all about.

https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/using-the-spotlight-database/#red

University of Missouri – Columbia has been given the speech code rating Red. A red light university has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. Read more here.
=================================

Red Light

A “red light” institution has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. A “clear” restriction is one that unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression. In other words, the threat to free speech at a red light institution is obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied.