Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunny Sunny, 77° Weather Forecast

Thomas Mitchell
Thomas Mitchell is the Senior Opinion Editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the newspaper's role in the community.
View all blog entries
May 2012
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Apr    
  01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Proposed federal law another threat to free speech on campus

It is like an immutable law of physics. For every offensive action there must be introduced an equally offensive law to futilely attempt to prevent it from ever happening again. Never mind if there are already plenty of laws on the books, there oughta be a law.
 
Thus it is with the apparent suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, who reportedly jumped off a bridge after two classmates live-streamed on the Internet video of him in a sexual encounter with another man.
 
Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Rush Holt have introduced HR 6425, the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2010, “To prevent harassment at institutions of higher education, and for other purposes.”
 
Never mind that the alleged perpetrators already have been charged under existing laws in New Jersey.
 
The folks at FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, are warning that this proposed federal law could be still another threat to free speech on campus, already an endangered species.
 
"Tyler Clementi was subjected to an unconscionable violation of privacy, but that conduct was already criminal and prohibited by every college in America," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff was quoted as saying in a blog on the FIRE website. "For decades, colleges have used vague, broad harassment codes to silence even the most innocuous speech on campus. The proposed law requires universities to police even more student speech under a hopelessly vague standard that will be a disaster for open debate and discourse on campus. And all this in response to student behavior that was already illegal."
 
As the blog posting points out, what is particularly troublesome is not what the proposed law says, but what it omits. It leaves out the requirement that the “harassment” be objectively offensive to a reasonable person. Those with the thinnest of skins could invoke the law for the flimsiest of reasons.
 
Of course, the proposed law specifies communication on the Internet as covered by its sweeping prohibitions, making it hazardous to use Twitter and Facebook and YouTube anywhere in the known universe.
 
And the bill’s threshold is insanely low. It criminalizes behavior that “is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive so as to limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from a program or activity at an institution of higher education, or to create a hostile or abusive educational environment at an institution of higher education …”
 
As one FIRE writer points out, this might prevent PETA protesters from holding up photos from a slaughterhouse outside the cafeteria because it might hamper the “benefit” of eating lunch.
 
There oughta be a law …
 
 
 

Comments (7)

Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.

Share your thoughts on this story.

Sign in or register to make a comment.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

7 Responses to "Proposed federal law another threat to free speech on campus"
Let them waste their time passing this latest assault on the 1st Amendment. The USSC will ultimately toss it, anyway..
Written by: miraje on Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM -- Report abuse
You're still having trouble with what is free speech and what isn't. Even the title should tell you something. Free Speech. Free of what? You know you can't yell fire in a theater full of people, when there's no fire. Would you like to repeal that, too?


The folks at FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, are warning that this proposed federal law could be still another threat to free speech on campus, already an endangered species.

Where is it endangered? How?


As the blog posting points out, what is particularly troublesome is not what the proposed law says, but what it omits. It leaves out the requirement that the “harassment” be objectively offensive to a reasonable person.

That's covered in the word, "harassment."


And the bill’s threshold is insanely low.

So it's the degree, and not the fact?


There oughta be a law …

There is; and the courtroom is where its operation degree should be decided.
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2010 at 9:30 AM -- Report abuse
Its interesting that you write "Those with the thinnest of skins could invoke the law for the flimsiest of reasons. ", and yet this is exactly what you are doing with the naked lawsuit business plan with Righthaven. No cease and desist, no warning, just sue and extort to the tune of over 170+ no warning lawsuits. Here's hoping the new leadership understands how poorly this reflects on the RJ.
Written by: mgmlv01 on Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010 at 8:44 AM -- Report abuse
We need to take a hard look at 'freedom of speech' in this country. All of western European countries have freedom of speech, but they do draw lines. For example, a Dutch member of parliament is on trial for repeatedly speaking out against Muslims. His crime? Inciting violence and discrimintation with his 'free speech.' There's a similar trial going on in England. Your freedom of speech stops where my life or safety is endangered. That would certainly put a person like Glenn Beck out of business.
Written by: CrinVegas on Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010 at 11:39 AM -- Report abuse
@CrinVegas: And Olbermann and Maddow. Liberty is not risk free.
Written by: Thomas Mitchell on Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010 at 12:03 PM -- Report abuse
Our Menacing laws (the act of threatening) covers a good portion of describing what free speech is and what it isn't. As a police officer, I've imposed it a number of times (like ending arguments in bar fights).
Written by: Jerry.Sturdivant on Friday, Nov. 26, 2010 at 5:15 AM -- Report abuse
Democrat recruiting poster:

Applicant must be spineless, whiney, and arrogant.
Written by: Deep.Thoughts on Sunday, Nov. 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM -- Report abuse
More Blogs