Texas cannot make up his mind about free speech.
In 2019, it Starred Law to promote a strong and uninhabited exchange of ideas in its public colleges and universities. Appropriately called the Complex Act, a protected expression on that law Necessary Higher education institutions to protect speech and freedom of assembly and to develop policies to make those policies public. This prevented them from preventing students or faculties from inviting speakers on the campus as their trips may be due to disputes, and it is mandatory that students who interfere with the free speech activities of others are subject to the discipline of the university. And took additional steps to say that the exterior place in the campus would be “traditional public forums”.
Such stage Usually a public sector is considered Open to anyone to exercise guaranteed rights by the first amendment. Conservative conservative 2019 law supportedAssuming that their approach would be awakened in the premises in political purity.
But October 7, 2023 Israel’s terrorist attack And after that everything changed. And on 25 June, Lone Star State changed the course when Gove Greg Abbott (R) Put signature on In law “Campus Protection Act.”
Austin american-Statesman They say This law would “tightly harass the free speech regulations in college complexes, which were included in universities across the country in universities across the country, including many in Texas complexes, where students called for ending the Israel-Hamas war.” It severely prohibits the rights of students and employees in its state universities, engaged in peaceful opposition to compassionate protests recognized by the Supreme Court as valid expressive activities. The law free speech establishes a new front in wars, and when challenged in courts, it should be killed.
Among other things, this public platform withdraws designation that has made it to Pro-Pricin and anti-Israeli voices. Campus Protection Act also Ban on After 10 pm and before 8 am, ban the use of microphones or drums in any hour, and prohibits any protests during the last two weeks of each semester. And it bans camping, uses tents, or wears any disguise designed to hide someone’s identity.
On his face, the restrictions contained in the Campus Protection Act seem to be designed only to regulate time, location and speech method – regulations allowed Under the understanding of the first amendment of the Supreme Court. Such restrictions are already common in Texas; State Law Ban on “Picketing is being used for a funeral service within a feature or 1,000 feet of the cemetery,” after 3 hours before service and 3 hours of service. “Texas too Limit Protests on “important infrastructure facilities”, including pipelines, “Transport of oil or gas, or oil or gas products or components.”
This is a free speech, Texas style.
But also in Texas, ban in time, place and manner Must be “Appropriate.” United States Supreme Court It has made it clear The government has the burden of showing that such restrictions are “material-platforms, serve an important government interest, correspond to that interest, and leave open enough alternative channels for communication.”
Is there any law that targets time, location and method of speech, it is the material-plate, it is not just what it says. Courts It is also necessary for investigation References and circumstances around the Act of Law to see if the ban is only an excuse to prevent or punish speech, in which authorities have rejected.
Here, it seems clear that the Campus Protection Act is actually targeting pro-Filistin or anti-Israel opposition. One of the main sponsors of the Act When he said it became clear“(T) He took the world hostage to Colombia, Harvard, and other complexes across the country last year by the pro -terrorist mob.” Also, Abbott Condemned Prophem in complexes as “hate” and “antisemtic”.
In fact, law Removes a requirement already applied The Campus Protection Act by the Texas Legislature should be the “content-neutral”.
If it was not enough to indicate the serious constitutional defects of the law, then earlier this month, Houston ChroniclePublished an opinion piece Calling it “immensely wide”. The law does not separate big protests from people wearing T-shirts with slogans opposing the immigration activities of the Trump administration or stand quietly with the same message from three people.
Texas needs to make up his mind about free speech. The first amendment is not a heroine. This does not allow the government to hold a speech hostage for change in the prevailing political environment.
The 2019 law was correct to believe that speech is often annoying, upset and disruptive. If it was not, it would not require security. This is why today, courts should not allow Texas to ban the protest of the campus that it finds aggressive or politically wrong.
Austin SaraatWilliam Nelson of Judicial and Political Sciences at Amharst College is Cromwell Professor.
