Nation

By Jeff Sirmons
TheSequitur.com Contributor
March 29, 2006
[Image - Exmouth Journal]

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- America: the home of the brave and the land of the free-speech zone.

In order to preserve an “educational atmosphere,” many public colleges and universities have set aside areas on campus where students and faculty members are allowed to speak about whatever they want whenever they want — much like public property in the United States of America.

Students have been arrested on campus for exercising free speech outside these zones.  Four years ago, a dozen Florida State University students protesting Nike sweatshops were arrested and taken to the county jail when their demonstration crossed free-speech boundaries.

And then there’s the student at New Mexico State University who was arrested in September 2000 – for distributing leaflets criticizing the school’s policy of free speech.

And protestors were arrested for trespassing when they gathered outside a free-speech zone designated by President George W. Bush during his speech at the University of South Florida’s Sun Dome in 2002.  Interestingly enough, USF has no regular speech zones.

The president also barred protestors from his campaign tour in 2004, relegating them to a roped off ‘First Amendment zone’ usually well out of his sight.  Only those who swore allegiance to him and his leadership were allowed to see his speeches up close and personal.  Officials said this separation was for the President’s protection.

Bush created these zones, but it seems hard to constitutionally justify their legality.  Let’s see if we can logically determine whether abridging free speech is constitutional.

• The first amendment states that “Congress shall pass no law…abridging freedom of speech.” In this case, Congress isn’t passing a law abridging freedom of speech — university officials are.  But the14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states – meaning public university officials.

• In the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, Justice Abe Fortas wrote “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Tinker applies to public high schools, not public universities.  This means that free-speech zones are still legal on a college campus.  However, this also means that I had more free-speech rights as a pubescent, zit-faced 14-year-old than I do as an independent, 21-year-old professional journalist.

In each of these cases, free speech zones remained legal not because something supported their legality, but because no law directly contradicted their legality.  It’s fairly clear, however, that based on Tinker v. Des Moines, free speech zones on public university grounds are probably unconstitutional.

In February, 2004, a federal court ruled Texas Tech’s free speech policy, which required students who wished to speak freely to get a permit two days in advance, unconstitutional because its limitations were too broad.  Roberts v. Haragan, held that the policy placed “a burden on expression that did not conflict with any significant interests of the university.”

According to Beth Waltrip, Director of Student Affairs at the University of Florida, the administration’s job is to “maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to learning.”  She added that free-speech zones help keep students in line, thereby keeping the campus quieter and offering fewer distractions to the studious.

While the zones do help maintain an instructive atmosphere, the censorship of speech outside the zone, for educational purposes alone, is too broad.

Zoning off free speech hinders a students’ right to the marketplace of ideas (Waltrip also said the administration’s job was to maintain this).  Students would no doubt receive more information if they were allowed to distribute ideas at all points of a public campus.  Even though campus would be quieter, students encounter fewer viewpoints with zoned free speech, especially if none of their classes took place near the zones.

Furthermore, if public university officials have the right to limit free speech, why shouldn’t they have the right to abolish free speech?  If they can limit free speech to only two percent of the campus, why not finish the job?  Students who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights can just go to the nearest park and soapbox to homeless people and children.

Also, UF’s free speech zones remain under university jurisdiction, meaning that if a teacher calls the University Police and says the protestors are being too loud, the police can tell the protestors to quiet down.

Suing universities with free speech zones for violating First Amendment rights has been successful.  The University of West Virginia gave up its free-speech zones soon after they were sued.  New Mexico State University also gave up its zones after the aforementioned arrested student filed a lawsuit.  Several universities, including Western Illinois University and Penn State University, along with USF, also have done away with the regulation of free speech.

It appears that, while the Supreme Court has not made an official opinion on this issue, these schools believe the court would abolish the zones if given the opportunity.

So, maybe a group of students at each university should sue until all public schools allow the freedom of speech to all students on all grounds.

Kind of like America.