Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission

from the students-shouldn't-be-seen-or-heard dept

Another public university is getting sued over its unconstitutional speech policies. While schools can place some restrictions on students’ speech, they can’t just carve out blanket exceptions that allow them to treat the First Amendment as a privilege it might extend to students if they’ve filled out all the proper paperwork.

Jones County Junior College student Mike Brown managed to First Amendment his way right into a conversation with the campus police chief. At this school, you have to ask permission before you can speak to other students, apparently. Here’s the write-up from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which is representing Brown in his lawsuit against the college.

In April, Brown and two other individuals held up a sign designed to poll students on the legalization of recreational marijuana. But Jones College administrators quickly summoned campus police because the group hadn’t filled out the proper paperwork — which requires administrative approval and a minimum three-day waiting period before “gathering for any purpose” anywhere on campus.

Brown and another student were taken to the police chief’s office while their friend, a non-student, was escorted to his car and told to leave immediately and not return, or he’d face arrest. Back in the chief’s office, the police chief told Brown he should have known better than to blatantly exercise his free speech rights on campus without administrative approval.

Ah, to be young and living in the Land of the Free, being told by law enforcement that your protected speech needs to be approved ahead of time by a public institution’s administrators. Here’s the policy that Jones JC has written — the one being challenged in court. According to this, on-campus speech has a three-day waiting period.

Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose, conducted on the campus of the institution must be scheduled with the President or Vice President of Student Affairs at least 72 hours in advance of the event. (Forms available in Student Affairs) Names of the responsible leaders of the groups must be submitted to the institution at the time of scheduling.

While schools can place a few restrictions on speech to ensure classes aren’t interrupted and campus traffic isn’t impeded, they cannot simply create blanket prohibitions that require student speech to be pre-approved. As the lawsuit points out, the campus is large and contains many areas where students could gather without disrupting the school day.

JCJC’s property is made up of several hundred acres and its Ellisville campus has many open, publicly accessible areas, outdoor green spaces, sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas and thoroughfares where student speech and expressive activity would not interfere with or disturb access to college buildings or sidewalks, impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or disrupt campus operations or the college’s educational functions. Yet, the entire campus is off-limits to any student expression without the prior approval of JCJC administrators at least three to five days ahead of time through an undefined scheduling process that grants JCJC unfettered and arbitrary discretion to prohibit student expression on the basis of content or viewpoint.

As an added bonus, the student handbook also prohibits “public profanity” on campus, which is about as ridiculous an imposition on free speech as requiring students to ask the school’s permission to speak freely. That restriction comes into play in this complaint because a prior run-in with the campus’ speech police (who were also literally police officers) involved a “free speech ball” being thrown around by a bunch of adults that administrators claimed was “covered with profanities” during its earlier foray into First Amendment violations.

The lawsuit asks for the court to give the students of JCJC back their First Amendment rights by declaring the school’s speech policy unconstitutional. This step was taken because the college decided to ignore FIRE’s earlier offering to help it write a more constitutional policy. Now, it gets to defend it in court and explain to judges why it feels it doesn’t need to respect students’ rights. That should be fun.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: jones county junior college

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
83 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Honest questions (as a foreigner I’m trying to understand US free speech rights):

Isn’t the first amendment only binding for the government? Or is a public college considered part of that government?

Also, isn’t it possible for (for example) a company to restrict free speech in it’s offices? And if so, how is that different from a college restricting free speech on it’s campus?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yes – that is what a public college means. Part of the conditions of receiving the funding means they must operate like the government. There are very good historical reasons for that – usually involving bigotted assholes engaged in shenanigans to try to backdoor segregation by funding a "private" college. No – if they receive the funds for an educational purpose they are a public college period.

Prof. Anna T. Laced says:

Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...

immunity and power, SO are in fact NOT strictly private entities.

The same STATUTE that authorizes BINDS them to observe Constitutional protections — "free speech" is fairly well-defined by SC cases — NO MATTER what masnicks and other neo-fascist legalists say.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The same STATUTE that authorizes BINDS them to observe Constitutional protections

Yes, this is true: Public, government-owned/operated colleges are bound to observe the protections of the First Amendment.

Privately owned corporations and their platforms for speech, however, are not.

If you can cite a single law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise, well, it’d be a nice change of pace from you running away with your tail between your legs whenever someone asks you to make that citation.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If you can cite a single … “common law” court ruling that says otherwise,

According to him, "common law" isn’t past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People". You could ask him for a citation of these "ancient customs", but (from what I recall) he thinks that we probably already know what he’s talking about and that we only ask these questions to waste his time.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

But since he’s just copying bits and pieces of other people’s ideas he can’t answer, eh?

I haven’t seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I haven’t seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.

Since Blue Balls can’t use Google, he can’t look things up I guess? Maybe he has a stack of SovCit comic books in his room that he cribs from?

Lacking a rebuttal from the source, I’ll go with that.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...

First, “gov’t-conferred” immunity is just saying that the government interfere with something. It’s the equivalent of a company whose (binding) EULA explicitly state that they cannot and will not sue Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their copyrighted works. That doesn’t make those people the company is explicitly saying it can’t sue part of that company; nor does it mean that those people couldn’t sue other Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their works.

Also, there is no “gov’t-conferred” power involved in §230. They are immune from suit for 3rd-party content (outside certain exceptions) and for moderating decisions of 3rd-party content. The power to moderate was one the companies already had without §230 or any law or government intervention. §230 just means that they can’t be sued for exercising the power they already had.

Having “gov’t-conferred” immunity does not make one a government entity for FA purposes. After all, everyone has “‘gov’t-conferred’ immunity” thanks to the First Amendment. In fact, every right can be seen as an immunity conferred by the government. The question of whether one is a government entity is based on a combination of whether public/government funding is used and what functions the entity performs. Being given immunity from suit has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government, and are considered governmental in nature.

There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. For instance, in the College’s role as an employer, it can limit the free speech of its employees in some specific employer-ish ways.

You’d do better to look up the ACLU or FIRE than have me go on, though. They’ve had longer to look at the issue.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government"
Not so much anymore. The main reason for the rising cost of education, in the us, is the continual decline of government funding at both fed & state level.

"There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. "
Free speech zone – lol

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yeah; according to their handbook, I would have been breaking the rules whenever I wasn’t in class but was on campus. My friends and I always arranged where we’d meet between classes, and sometimes we’d even <gasp> go for lunch!

Since I was living on campus, this also meant that I wouldn’t have been allowed to invite friends over or organize study groups.

But the block parties with heavy drinking would have been OK, as they always provided 3 days notice.

Prof. Anna T. Laced says:

So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?

Techdirt constantly claims that corporations have near absolute power to arbitrarily control speech on their "platforms" — actually meaning the part they voluntarily allowed The Public to use — even if it’s "constitutionally protected" speech.

But here you go on about requiring permission for a gathering — if are any restrictions on topic, you don’t mention.

But physical aspects — even if only potential — are not same as limiting speech.

While Techdirt advocates, just yesterday, that corporations are empowered to arbitrarily control ALL speech on "platforms".

HOW can both those be claimed on ONE site within 24 hours?

Now, since is ME — I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday, which any new reader should look at to get Techdirt’s view that off-topic vulgarity is allowable while on-topic dissent should be "hidden" as euphemized — I can’t expect any actual attempt at answer, so just another one of the pieces here that raise inexplicable contradictions.

Bottom line is that Techdirt is for "free speech" which it likes — the mega-corporations enforce "political correctness" and neo-liberalism — and in this piece, not coincidentally, Techdirt is exercised by someone not being able to advocate drug use without getting permission for a physical venue. No real conflict if know Techdirt and its pro-corporate and drug-using biases.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

A public college is nominally a government institution and is thus bound by law to follow the First Amendment and any related jurisprudence. Facebook is a privately-owned company, so it does not face the same restriction.

And yes, the law empowers Facebook to moderate speech on Facebook, which can (and does) include the right to ban certain kinds of speech and people who violate the Facebook TOS. If the law required Facebook to host all constitutionally protected speech, Facebook would be overrun with spam, bigoted slurs, and racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic propaganda — all of which is constitutionally protected speech.¹


¹ — Feel free to replace every instance of “Facebook” in those sentences with Twitter, Tumblr, or the name of any other privately-owned social interaction network. The song will remain the same.

Berenerd (profile) says:

Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

Facebook has rules you need to abide by which also are mitigated by government laws. Is this child safe? No? it goes! Is this discussing illegal activities? Yes? Gone. Is this promoting hate with graphic images and other requirements that the user agreed to when they made this account? Yes? Banned.

Colleges, especially public schools, have the same responsibilities.The issue here is, a very broad rule, that can cover 2 people talking to one another, and not locking all of the people up having a general conversation, as their rule applies, means a bias. These students were not doing anything that anyone can do on public land. They did nothing to the point of blocking passage, interrupting the normal functions of the school. They were arrested because someone disagreed with a sign they had and felt that was a legit reason to arrest them.

What the college did was the equivalent of a white lady calling the cops because a black family next door was having a family BBQ. No laws were being broken, the family were just different.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity. The Klan can say all the racial slurs in the world so long as they aren’t calling for the deaths of Black people; the government can’t do shit about that. And if a platform’s owners/operators want to allow that speech on said platform, the government can’t do shit about that, either.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity.

IIRC, hate speech can be used as evidence of a hate crime, something that was already a crime but was given a harsher penalty than normal because of the motive (homophobia/racism/etc). Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I suspect she’s referring to this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

If so, it’s worth noting that the man was first convicted, then successfully appealed and had the conviction quashed, with enough agreement that it was a miscarriage of justice that future cases are likely to need more evidence to get to the same stage.

It’s also worth noting that while jail was mentioned as a possible consequence by the press at the time, the actual penalty applied by the court was only a fine, although the man also lost his job as a consequence of the conviction.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

My dearest Anna,

A public college is considered by the law to be an arm of the government – the same rules apply there as in the public square. Speech there is protected by the 1st Amendment.

A platform run by a corporation is a private venue – like a private home. Within a private venue, the owner is entitled to make and enforce whatever rules she likes – people who don’t like those rules are free to leave or setup their own venue. The 1st Amendment doesn’t apply, because it’s not the the government that is making the rules.

And therein lies the difference. There is no contradiction in Techdirt’s position.

The difference between the rules for private vs. public venues exists for the good reason that it’s far more difficult to leave a country (or setup a new one) than it is to leave (or create) a private venue.

Rocky says:

Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

While Techdirt advocates, just yesterday, that corporations are empowered to arbitrarily control ALL speech on "platforms".

Techdirt doesn’t advocate that at all, TD only points out that what the law says. If you think that is in error, please cite the relevant law that forbids anyone from moderating speech on their private property?

HOW can both those be claimed on ONE site within 24 hours?

If you don’t know the difference between a private entity and a government entity there is no hope for you at all.

Bottom line is that Techdirt is for "free speech" which it likes — the mega-corporations enforce "political correctness" and neo-liberalism — and in this piece, not coincidentally, Techdirt is exercised by someone not being able to advocate drug use without getting permission for a physical venue. No real conflict if know Techdirt and its pro-corporate and drug-using biases.

Bottom line is that you make a lot of claims what Techdirt like and don’t like, but when someone points out WITH citations that you are wrong you never seem to want to rebut it – instead you slink off since your whole argumentative technique is based on dishonesty and cowardliness.

And in this piece, you didn’t even take the time to read and comprehend what was written. Perhaps you can answer me this, what where the students doing when they where carted off by the police?

I don’t expect an answer but it would be fun to see you squirm and distort what really happened to avoid looking like an ass.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

"So what’s the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?"

It’s fun to see you fail with even the most basic ideas.

College campus = a physical location often funded at least partially with government money, where people who pay to access are usually bound to attend for several years, and is difficult/expensive to transfer

Facebook = a virtual space where nobody pays directly, nobody is bound to stay for any length of time and can leave without penalty at any time without penalty

If you fail to understand fundamental aspects of the discussions, you are bound to fail with all your argument.

"I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday"

But, sadly, you did not understand them.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

You can advocate for the right to speak freely without condoning/defending the actual speech of bigots or thinking they deserve an audience. I believe a Klan member should have the right to shout his racist bullshit on a street corner — but that doesn’t mean I have to listen, and it doesn’t mean I can’t counter their speech with my own.

Anonymous Coward says:

It is amazing how some folk can be told many many times exactly how they are wrong about the First Amendment and yet they refuse to accept the fact. What so these trolls hope to accomplish, if anything at all.

Most rational people, upon facing the facts, will change their attack vector(s) to coincide with reality thus producing arguments that address the facts rather than their fantasies.

ECA (profile) says:

Collage? free speech?? BACK to the 60's..

What is considered a GROUP?

A collage that doesnt ALLOW the ability to have FREE speech??
Wow, this hasnt happened since the 60’s…

AND..you really have a Police base INSIDE the School?
http://www.jcjc.edu/campuspolice/
There is no info here saying they are REAL police.
And as for kicking someone Off the grounds, they can ASK, but the best recourse is to call the cops and has to restrict them..You can not DEMAND he stay away.

Jones County Agricultural High School
Jones County Junior College
In 2018, the college was rebranded as Jones College. The school is still legally called Jones County Junior College.
I will bet this is a State college. as its only a 2 year and an Asc. degree.
Its not privately Owned..
So they have to follow State laws, really well.

Joel Brereton (profile) says:

It's a waste of time

It will be a very long lawsuit, the student and college representatives will lose a lot of free time to figure it out, I think it is better for the student not to waste time in vain, but to continue to study, you can find top essay writing review here that will be useful to you, this saves you a little time and improves your grades.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »