The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ft. Lewis College Posting Policy Forbids "Hate Speech"
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education just noted this as its "Speech Code of the Month." To be sure, a public college can impose some limits on what student groups post on campus, because walls, bulletin boards, and the like are generally seen as "limited public fora," in which reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permitted. But restrictions on posting "hate speech" in such a limited public forum (or even on displaying it in a nonpublic forum) are viewpoint-based, and thus unconstitutional (see, e.g., Matal v. Tam (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)).
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What has the Constitution got to do with being woke?
Racism means a bias against a race. Sexism means a bias against a sex. What is the name of a bias against lawyers?
Shut down this school. Mandamus the Non-Profit Office of the IRS to rescind its tax exemption. Do that once, woke is gone from the whole country.
US Constitution 1A kind of prohibits imposing any kind of enforceable "wokeness" on other people.
Been working real well, hasn't it. Oh wait, I forgot, the government interprets those limits, and when the government is run by the woke, guess who decides?
Obsolete right-wing bigots have rights, too!
Dictators who want to silence others have no rights at all. Only armies of thug supporters.
A model who called Putin a psychopath was just found in a suitcase.
Quit kibitzing on the little stuff.
Do you contend the criticism precipitated the murder?
Is that a Gateway Pundit special?
The story has been printed by dozens of media outlets - it's available for those who know how to do an internet search. BTW, TGP tends to be correct in its theories - it just takes the evildoers and their lawyers a while before they are forced to concede that.
The report I read indicated a deranged boyfriend was the killer, with no motive related to any political comments. Do you have any reliable information to the contrary?
Gateway Pundit? You sound like a disaffected, delusional clinger.
definitely a clinger, to my Bible and my guns.
The policy prohibits posting "Materials that contain unprotected expressions such as libel, obscenity, or hate speech." They should have had a lawyer go over that ambiguous rule. Does it only prohibit posting unprotected hate speech, e.g. true threats? Does the school consider all "hate speech" to be unprotected?
Eugene's post seems to be a contradiction given the language of the school's rule.
The prohibition applies to "unprotected expressions" and then goes on to provide three examples of expressions that are deemed unprotected (with hate speech being one of the examples). But, if Eugene is correct that hate speech is not an unprotected form of speech, then the policy wouldn't prohibit hate speech, since the prohibition is actually against unprotected expressions.
The school believes that its three examples are unprotected. They are wrong. And they intend to enforce their new ban. And that is unconstitutonal.
Disaffected blog
is selectively pecking
at mainstream ankles
Cherry-picked sniping
at better institutions;
lessers get a pass
there once was a Arthur K Kirkland from Nanuckett.....
Come on, Artie. You need to STFU until you resign, interview and select your diverse replacement. Until that happens, your comments are empty palaver by a hypocrite, male, old white supremacist. Post the interview and the selection process, based on skin color or sexual orientation.
The "Shut Up" and "Things Suck" signs are more substantive than most I've seen waved around at protests.
I just received the following message from Eugene Volokh
"If you’d like to criticize my position on, say, harassment law or restraining orders or libel or what have you on comment threads for posts that relate to that, be my guest. Do not, however, keep posting repetitive rants, especially when they are off-topic (as on the Russian sanctions post). They will be deleted.
Eugene Volokh"
It's ironic that Eugene Volokh talks about "Free Speech" so publicly and is against the deletion of any data, however malicious, about individuals online, yet HE WANTS to actively censor my posts ABOUT him.
Talk about a double standard.
Your views are dangerous for Americans Eugene, because they legalize cyberstalking and leave victims no recourse for these harms.
I will criticize and expose you all I want until you publicly speak out and apologize for harming victims of cyberstalking and cyberharassment.