The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently issued a statement about what is and is not protected free speech as part of protests. I reprint it here in full (after receiving permission).1
FIRE’s Statement: Introduction
Yesterday, FIRE released the below statement regarding the protests spreading across America’s campuses. We are aware that things developed overnight and are continuing to develop in real time and, as always, our team is monitoring the situation closely.
These are incredibly hard times. FIRE's North Star is the First Amendment, and as such we are focused on clarifying the lines between protected and unprotected speech, reminding colleges and universities of their duty to protect expressive rights and the physical safety of campus members, and defending those whose rights are violated.
FIRE statement on campus violence and arrests
FIRE is monitoring outbreaks of violence and arrests on campuses nationwide. Sadly, we must again restate a bedrock principle: Violence is never acceptable.
Colleges and universities must ensure the swift arrest of anyone engaging in violence on campus, whether committed by students or visitors. Violence thus far appears to have been isolated, but things can change at any moment, and it must be made clear that any violence is unacceptable. Institutions must provide meaningful security and take prompt action to separate groups when tensions flare. For everyone’s safety, and to secure expressive rights for all, no one on campus should have any sense whatsoever that violence will be tolerated or excused.
While the First Amendment protects a great deal of expression, FIRE again emphasizes it is not without boundaries. True threats and incitement to violence, as defined by the Supreme Court, are not protected. Neither is discriminatory harassment: targeted conduct that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies the targeted student access to an educational opportunity or benefit. And when protesters surround opposing speakers or otherwise prevent students from freely moving around campus, they cross the line separating protected expression and unprotected misconduct.
Peaceful protest is generally protected, and colleges and universities must ensure students can engage in peaceful protest on campus. But we remind students that engaging in civil disobedience may result in punishment, including arrest. Civil disobedience derives its expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. That willingness illustrates their intensity of feeling. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights.
We likewise remind administrators and law enforcement that institutional responses must be measured. Peaceful protest must not be met with violence simply because of the viewpoints expressed.
This is an extraordinarily difficult moment for students, faculty, administrators, alumni, and the public. Tensions are high and nerves are raw. The charity and grace necessary for productive dialogue are in vanishingly short supply, and it can be difficult to separate protected expression from its opposite.
Amidst this intense pressure, our nation’s institutions of higher education must lead the way. By acting decisively to defend protected speech while preventing violence, colleges and universities can preserve the safety and stability required for the discussion across differences they are uniquely equipped to facilitate.
Permission to post. Two of my former grad students, Sean Stevens (from whom I sought permission) and Nate Honeycutt are now research scientists at FIRE, where they are even better-positioned to fight these fights than I am. In academia, “prestige” flows to people whose students get academic jobs. Even though academia mostly runs on prestige, and even though I am willing to exploit prestige games to advantage given the opportunity, I consider it mostly bullshit. In this context, I could not be more proud of Sean and Nate.
“This is an extraordinarily difficult moment for students, faculty, administrators, alumni, and the public. “
No it is NOT. This is very simple. Stop being self-centered and respect the rights of others. You may be upset but you never have the right to infringe upon others. Get over yourself. It really is that simple.
When you decide to put boundaries on freedom of speech, you start falling in a slippery slope leading to tyranny. Who decides what the boundaries are? Who enforces them? Who interprets them at will?
Of course, physical violence is not acceptable but the concept of violence has been weaponized to even consider verbal violence to tell a person that he has a psychological disorder and needs healing. So verbal violence is another slippery slope against freedom.
We need to focus on freedom of reach instead!
No Free Speech without Reach. We need a #FreeReach law urgently!
http://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/no-free-speech-without-reach