Tennessee’s ‘Charlie Kirk’ Act Would Force Public Universities To Be As Hypocritical As MAGA’s Favorite Dead Boy

Legal Issues

from the only-intolerance-can-save-us-from-intolerance dept

The patron saint of the “debate me, bro” grift is getting his due as most saints do: posthumously. The best thing that ever could have happened to people perpetrating “violent left” bullshit was Charlie Kirk being shuffled off this mortal coil by the predictable end result of his divisive, racist, bullying speech.

What should have been Exhibit (see appendices: A-ZZZZZZZ) of America’s globally unique gun violence problem instead became a rallying cry for the far right, most of whom were thrilled to see someone other than them sacrificed to the “cause,” rather than being expected to back up their Gadsden Flag bumper stickers by actually raising their AR-15s in the general direction of an autocracy in the making.

Multiple state legislators are pushing bills named after Charlie Kirk in red-coded states. These will be covered in future articles because while all the bills are stupid, each one is stupid in particular ways that deserve specific derision. They’re all predicated on the same lies and intellectual dishonesty Charlie Kirk personified. Like a lot of MAGA acolytes, Charlie Kirk believed the First Amendment not only guaranteed his right to spread his hate (which it does!) but also guaranteed him an audience and protection from the expected repercussions (which it definitely does not).

With that in mind, let’s take a look at a bill that has passed both the House and Senate in Tennessee, well on its way to the expected signature of Governor Bill Lee. Here’s the copy-pasting of Rep. Bulso’s press release, delivered to us by absolutely no human journalist (“Herald Reports” byline) at the Williamson Herald:

The Tennessee House of Representatives this week passed legislation by State Rep. Gino Bulso, R-Brentwood, to ensure college campuses remain beacons of free expression.

The Charlie Kirk Act, or House Bill 1476, requires public higher education institutions in Tennessee to adopt a policy on freedom of expression consistent with the University of Chicago’s 2015 policy, which underscores a university’s responsibility to promote “fearless freedom of debate and deliberation.” They will also adopt a policy on political and social action, as in the Kalven Report, that encourages institutional neutrality.

“Beacons of free expression” is in the eye of the beholders/bill sponsors. While this bill does try to limit heckler’s vetoes from determining what speakers colleges can or can’t host, it does so at the expense of the First Amendment with compelled speech. The bill says colleges can’t prevent speakers from speaking even if most students object to the speaker. Fair enough, I guess, but it also compels colleges to allow anyone to speak, even if it’s the sort of thing they would never endorse tacitly, much less deliberately.

But the bill [PDF] travels far beyond the nominal protections against heckler’s vetoes. It compels colleges (and college students!) to provide speakers with unobstructed access to an audience. While it’s one thing to tell publicly-funded state schools not to engage in viewpoint discrimination, it’s another (unconstitutional) thing entirely to tell students they cannot protest speakers they disagree with.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-7-2404, is amended by adding the following as a new subdivision:
(6) “Substantially obstruct or otherwise substantially interfere” includes, but is not limited to:

(A) Making noises with the intent of drowning out an invited speaker or hindering the audience from hearing the invited speaker;
(B) Standing in between an invited speaker and the audience with the intent of blocking or impeding an audience member’s view of the speaker or the speaker’s view of the audience members;
(C) Using signs or objects in a way to block or impede an audience member’s view of an invited speaker or the speaker’s view of the audience members;
(D) Staging walk-outs during an event or in the middle of an invited speaker’s remarks that result in considerable disruption or distraction or the need to pause the event for any period of time, however short; and
(E) Physically obstructing an invited speaker or an audience member from entering or attending an event.

That is some bullshit. The statute being amended deals with “time, place, and manner” restrictions allowed under the Constitution. This amendment says the First Amendment no longer matters. The following portions of the amendment obligate universities to punish (including expelling students or terminating faculty members) those who violate these new state-specific, named-after-Charlie-Kirk exemptions to the First Amendment.

In addition, violations of any part of this law allow speakers to bring lawsuits or file charges against students and staff members, which turns any perceived dissent into a cause of action.

And it goes further than that, ordering public entities to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which has always been a violation of the Constitution:

(a) Notwithstanding another law to the contrary, a public institution of higher education or a faculty member or agent of the institution shall not discriminate or retaliate against a person on account of the person’s:

(1) Sincere religious beliefs; or
(2) Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender behavior, regardless of whether that opposition is motivated by religious or non-religious beliefs.

(b) A public institution of higher education or faculty member or agent of the institution shall not deny recognition to any student group, or deny any employer access to on-campus student interviews, on account of the student group’s or employer’s:

(1) Sincere religious beliefs;
(2) Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender behavior, regardless of whether that opposition is motivated by religious or non-religious belief; or
(3) Refusal to employ or admit into membership or leadership positions, individuals whose beliefs or lifestyle choices are incompatible with the sincere beliefs of the organization.

No similar carve-out is listed for students or faculty members whose viewpoints are opposed to ones the state is preparing to grant extra rights to. No cause of action is given to those who fall on the other end of the viewpoint spectrum should a college discriminate against their viewpoints or deny them access to an audience or refuse to act if their speech is greeted with the actions listed above as forbidden under this bill’s one-sided interpretation of the First Amendment.

There’s no way this law won’t immediately be blocked by courts once it’s enacted. It is absurdly and transparently unconstitutional. But it does get at least one thing right: this is how the person it’s named after — along with his acolytes — actually think the First Amendment works. As they see it, the First Amendment not only allows them to speak freely, but obtain uninterrupted access to a receptive audience. And all the while, they think the First Amendment should be their umbrella, sheltering them from the criticism their statements deliberately provoke.

Any governor who signs a bill like this similarly signals they don’t actually care about free speech. All they want is for people to be compelled to listen quietly and keep their comments to themselves.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, campus speech, charlie kirk, free speech, gop, heckler's veto, maga, tennessee