Free speech organization FIRES back at SHSU, calls police action 'unconstitutional'

Courtesy photo

In what is turning out to be a real news saga, FIRE, or the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sent Sam Houston State University president Dana Gibson, Ph.D., a letter today denouncing a university police officer's actions yesterday in the campus' free speech zone.

(The letter is below jump)



Four student organizations set up Thusrday a free speech wall in accordance with university policy, but a protest against the college's proposed social media policy soon turned sour.

A professor who was offended by the inscription "Fuck Obama" cut the expletive out of the wall with a box cutter after students refused to take it down or cover it up. University police were then called to the scene and apparently sided with the professor, insisting students take down all of what they deemed was "offensive" language or be issued a citation.

Here's what FIRE had to say about that:

Let us be clear: While the content in question-various uses of an expletive to make political and other points-might offend members of the campus community, it is unquestionably protected expression under the First Amendment. The principle of freedom of speech does not exist to protect only non-controversial speech; indeed, it exists precisely to protect speech that some members of a community may find controversial or "offensive." The Supreme Court stated in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Similarly, the Court wrote in Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973) that "the mere dissemination of ideas-no matter how offensive to good taste-on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.'" 

As a public university, SHSU cannot lawfully ban "four-letter words," no matter how offensive some may find them. The landmark Supreme Court case Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) made clear that the First Amendment protects shocking or offensive expression, including the use of expletives in the communication of core political speech. In Cohen, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Fuck the Draft" in a county courthouse. The Court held that the message on Cohen's jacket, however vulgar, was protected speech, writing that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Similarly, in Papish, the Court determined that a student newspaper article entitled "Motherfucker Acquitted" was constitutionally protected speech. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects many kinds of expression arguably much more offensive than what was printed on the free speech wall. 

Further, editorial comments about political figures such as President Obama or President Bush-even when they include "offensive" language-are a mainstay of America's long tradition of impassioned political dialogue. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), the Supreme Court made clear that honoring the First Amendment requires that "[d]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and ... may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." Similarly, in Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), the Court found that the First Amendment protected a deputy county constable's expressed hope that if another attempt were to be made on President Reagan's life, that it be successful. If such a statement constitutes protected speech, surely, then, the speech at issue on SHSU's campus does as well. 

No campus that claims to take seriously the free speech rights of students may censor them or their display because others on campus felt offended by fully protected speech. The fact that a single professor chose to respond with vandalism does not cause the speech to be unprotected as either "fighting words" or "disorderly conduct." Such a standard would enact an impermissible "heckler's veto" on SHSU's campus, in which all a person need do to silence someone else's speech is to act destructively or violently. The faculty vandal committed an offense, and the police officer should have acted to protect the First Amendment rights of SHSU's own students, not to make unconstitutional demands because of one unreasonable person's act.

To view the full pdf document letter, click here.

Posted in: Bearkats,Bush,Dana Gibson,facebook,first amendment,free speech,Obama,police,protest,Sam Houston STate,SHSU,social media,the Houstonian,twitter