Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Politics / We The People

An Important Free Speech Ruling – Media Largely Ignored

free speech

Free speech is under fire around the country – and has been for the past decade.  Nowhere is this clearer than on college campuses, where invited speakers have met violence, and students with traditional views face intimidation. None of this is good for America, but there is good news.  A federal court just ruled in a case the media ignored.  It is important.

The battle to preserve constitutionally guaranteed rights, including free speech and free exercise of religion, is ongoing.  Restoring open dialogue, diversity of intellectual views, and honest inquiry on campuses is – sadly – a continuing challenge. Still, there are bright spots – and one occurred this week – in Wisconsin.  

In an important legal ruling, a federal court in Wisconsin, on September 13, granted summary judgment in favor of a student who claimed her free speech rights were violated by a restrictive university “public assembly policy.”

There is more to this ruling than meets the eye.  In short, the student was distributing St. Valentine’s Day cards on February 14th of last year – to anyone who would accept one on the campus.  She was doing so politely and without disruption. 

These cards, consistent with the day’s origins, contained words such as “Jesus loves you,” “you are loved,” and “you are never alone.”  In a sign of our twisted times, perhaps encouraged by the mainstream media’s doublespeak – conflating loving faith with “hate speech” – the student was reported to security, apprehended and prohibited from handing out the Valentine’s Day cards.

Specifically, pursuant to the ruling, one learns:  After the student cheerfully distributed several cards, “someone phoned the … Security office to complain,” producing an “incident” report recording “suspicious activity and/or person,” then a dispatch to “locate her,” and “bring her to the security office.”

After first being detained and then leaving the security office, having explained her innocent intent, she continued to hand out cards.  This led to her being confronted by university security again, this time for “solicitation… in violation of … Public Assembly Policy” on campus. 

Having never asked anyone for anything, been in areas permitted to students, never forcing a card on anyone, and not seeking to “entreat” anything, the student felt this was an unfair restriction – suppressing her “right to free speech and discriminating against her based on her religious beliefs.”  

She was then told by Security that her activities might have been “disturbing the learning environment.”  In context, that appears unlikely, as later affirmed by university Security.  

Boxed out at every turn, the student finally “filed a complaint” with the university.  The complaint was left unresolved.  In fact, the university counsel contended their actions against her were “constitutional,” enforcement of their policy “lawful,” and her recourse at an end.

She then turned to the federal courts for relief.  She “raised facial and as-applied challenges to the constitutionality” of the University’s “Public Assembly Policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”  Note, the First Amendment is applied to the states through the fourteenth.  

In early 2019, the student sought summary judgment against the University.  Before opposing papers were filed, the University promulgated a new “Free Speech, Expression and Public Assembly Policy.”  

Contrary to the sound of it, the policy was a doubling down, intended – as the federal court noted in its ruling – “with the clear goal of more effectively arming” the University “to accomplish the same result: preventing [the student] and others from what the policy now calls ‘expressive activity’ outside of the small number of designated ‘public assembly areas’ within the boundaries of the campus.”

The court was not amused, writing: “In other words, it remains” the University’s “position that it may lawfully prohibit students …from freely handing out small pieces of paper such as Olsen’s Valentines with biblical verses or other messages written on them to friends, fellow students, and staff at the College who accept them.”

The court would not have it, saying the claim was not “moot” – and new policy not permissible.  “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in part that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” the court noted. 

Then, citing other cases, they observed “the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities,” which possess “many of the characteristics of a public forum,” and reminding readers that “the college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly ‘the marketplace of ideas.’ ”

The court was not finished.  They reminded the offending university, “there can be no doubt that in handing out her home-made Valentines to her fellow students, friends, and staff,” the student “was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of expression.”

The Supreme Court has historically concurred.  The idea of “hand billing,” or handing out paper on campus, is not controversial.  “As the United States Supreme Court recognized nearly 70 years ago … hand-billing is both a method of communication that has a long and venerable history that predates the birth of this nation, and is a form of speech that is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” observed the Wisconsin federal court.  

In fact, this was an activity even more broadly permitted, and limiting it to one or another location on campus was impermissible for a variety of reasons – all constitutional.  Any restrictions – even on hand-billing – would have to be “content neutral,” not prejudicial against the student’s Christian message.

So, in a vindication of the student and your rights – the court entered summary judgment for the student.  The implications are three.  First, students do have First Amendment “free speech” rights on college campuses, and the federal courts will uphold them – even against university policies transparently reconfigured to restrict, and effectively to discriminate, against one or another student based on content of their speech.

Second, the free speech rights vindicated relate expressly to free exercise of religion, and this ruling affirms that a student can not only hold religious views, but can discuss and distribute them in the context of the university’s “marketplace of ideas,” to borrow on prior Supreme Court rulings. 

Finally, this ruling reminds us that any student guided by conscience, motivated by good will, earnest in her faith, and aiming to lift fellow students should be allowed to do so.

America’s Founders – those who wrote our Constitution – were overwhelmingly people of faith, sure that the Hand of Providence was upon them, and would remain so, if they – and we – were true to founding principles. 

The future is protected by reference to the past.  Our Constitution is an exceptional document.  The foresight of that document’s framers is a remarkable, historical and objectively extraordinary. When federal judges interpret the Constitution in accord with the framers’ intent, good things result. 

True, forward steps are always conditional, subject to back steps.  True, we are forever buffeted by doubters, critics, and denigrators of rights our founders thought fundamental.  But so long as the “marketplace of ideas” remains open – especially on college campuses – there is room for disagreement, discernment and discussions that lead to truth.  This ruling helps keep that marketplace open – and that is good news.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Robert B. Charles

74
Leave a Reply

41 Comment threads
33 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
51 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Lynn

Hope she received punitive damages for her time, trouble, and the expense of moving her case through the “justice” system all the way to the Federal court whose ruling was appropriate and constitutional.

Patty L

Kudos to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and to the courageous young woman who brought the suit. 🇺🇸

M. Franklin

So good to hear a small (yet big and encouraging), bit of good news. While the Department of Indoctrination (AKA our public schools, colleges and universities), continue to masterfully teach much of the alphabet A, B, C, D, F, I, L, P, and S (Atheism, Belligerency, Communism, Disrespect, Flag-burning, Indoctrination, Liberalism, Protesting, and Socialism just to name a few required classes), an individual ‘beacon’ of light takes on a bully Goliath in the courts and wins. Wonderful.

Lisa Toth

In a week that has contained nothing but bullying by one side of our government this is good news. Thank you. I don’t know how I would have learned of this otherwise.
There is hope.

Ardee

Three cheers for hard earned American freedoms challenging destructive Godless “educators”!

Bob

Why not name the university in the article?
Transparency could lead to increased accountability.

Press ONE for English

While she won, she still lost. A substantial part of her young life was spent in lawyers offices, in courtrooms and, probably, in conference with the university. And I doubt all this came cheap. So while this outcome is good news, and the young lady should be commended for her perseverance, and while the left lost this battle, they still achieved one of their objectives, to create a chilling and prohibitive environment for anyone foolish enough to date to violate their sensibilities and orthodoxy. If we are to achieve any true relief from this intellectual terrorism, we have to move from a reactive mode to a proactive mode, which not coincidentally is exactly what the left is doing, except of course from the wrong side.

Patriot Pilot

I stand and applaud this young woman. If she needs any financial help with her legal fees (hopefully awarded damages by suit), I would be honored to donate to any fund that will help her and others in the same boat.

Loyd Stewart

Would the same apply to public high schools?

David Lyday

It is exhilarating to see a federal court rule on the side of religion and of the Constitutional intent of the framers. This is one more hugely important why EVERY PERSON who believes in God and the Constitution MUST COMMIT to get to the polls and RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP in November 2020, to keep the Senate, and to take back the House. Whether you have some concerns with the president, or you’re 100% behind him, he MUST get four more years and the congress he needs to help him. President Trump’s appointment to the Supreme Court and his 150 appointments to the Federal courts are the answer we’ve been waiting for for a generation. After decades of watching the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco practice political activism from the bench, rulings like the one in this article are absolutely critical to the ongoing character of America. Thank you, Wisconsin! Colleges… Read more »

Dr Timothy-Allen Albertson

The future belongs to freedom.

Margaret Amador

Congrats to that young student and the family she was raised in! We need more young people like her!

Gabriele

This should never have had to go court! Our colleges should be able to know and preserve our constitution. This just shows how utterly warped many of our educational institutions are. They should be ashamed of their behavior but then we are dealing with the left who know no shame.

Josephine pooley

Thank Godfor federal judges who cirrectly interpret our laws!

C. Spencer van Gulick

…And thank you to YOU for reporting this story, which I at least have never seen or heard anywhere else — and YOU are not even primarily a news organization!

Patty L

I googled the case and it was Northeastern Wisconsin Technical College. The woman in the story received $1.00 in damages. She said it wasn’t about money. it was about freedom. I really admire her!👍🏻

Patriot Pilot

Too bad the court can’t get rid of their rep in Congress…lol…!

Stuart I. Anderson

Is “the University” the victim of rape? Why is Robert Charles so careful as to not give us the name of the university? It’s obviously a public university because private universities don’t fall under the provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments so don’t the taxpayers of Wisconsin have a right to know the name of “the University”? BTW that’s why as a conservative I NEVER contribute a dime to the two private universities from which I graduated.

Stephen Russell

C How Universites censor Ideas & Innovation & ALL Lose.
Your call academia,i No ideas= No college is viable, Chap 13 college

Al

Last decade? This started in the 1960’s with the SDS and VDC, then move on to every petulant child in the country. They are now the radical left and haven’t changed since mommy and daddy quit paying their way. People like Adam Shiff should have a colostomy added to the outside of their left cheek so they can consume the same garbage the are trying to feed citizens.