It's unconstitutional for public universities to establish what are known as "free speech zones." Such zones effectively turn the rest of the campus into a censorship zone, and as such they violate these schools' obligation to uphold the First Amendment. The courts have ruled repeatedly on this matter, and FIRE has made a particular example of West Virginia University, which rewrote its policy on free expression after it became something of a national poster child for campus illiberalism. Here is the old policy, and here is the new one.

But free speech zones still exist on campuses across the country. As FIRE notes in its brief on West Virginia, such zones are in effect at Appalachian State, Florida State, the University of Houston, and scores of other institutions, including Shippensburg University, which is currently being sued by FIRE for its egregiously overbroad speech codes. While some schools have prudently abandoned free speech zones (these include Penn State and the University of Wisconsin), others continue to enforce them. And, as students and faculty become increasingly aware of their rights, they are beginning to protest the codes.

Tuesday, for example, faculty and students at Western Illinois University staged a silent march to protest the school's use of zones to restrict speech. At WIU, you have to apply for permission to use the free speech zone 48 hours in advance; the zone itself is, according to one student, "smaller than a classroom." At the University of Texas at El Paso, a student who was consistently denied permission to hold forums at the student union sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights. His case attracted the attention of state lawmakers, who are now putting together a bill that would limit universities' abilities to restrict speech. "Unfortunately, Texas universities are not meeting their obligation to provide a free learning environment for students," said Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, who wrote the bill. "This bill ensures that universities provide students with a chance to express their ideas without fear of being arrested or disciplined unfairly."

But there are still schools that either think they are above the law, or, conversely, are too incompetent to know what the law is. Such is the case at California State University at Chico. Chico State not only restricts speech to designated zones, but also censors expression within those zones. Last week, an anti-abortion group was forced to leave the zone when its graphic posters of aborted fetuses offended those who were participating in "Breaking the Silence," an event sponsored by the campus Women's Center. "I should not be harassed like this," said a student who confronted the anti-abortion protestors. She added that the pictures "make people feel like they're horrible creatures." (Click on the link above to see the offending posters, then click on the picture to see an enlargement.) One of the organizers of Breaking the Silence said that she "didn't oppose the anti-abortion group's right to free speech, but she didn't want any negativity around the area they had reserved. 'We were trying to create a safe place for people to come and discuss these issues. ... That picture alone brought nothing but negativity.'" The statement eerily reflects the increasingly prevalent notion that campuses should be above all comfortable, sheltered environments; that students cannot learn, or even, it seems, exist, unless they feel "safe" (i.e., unless their assumptions and beliefs are never challenged); and that the right not to be offended trumps the right to free speech.

The associate director of Student Activities Rick Rees responded to complaints by asking the anti-abortion group to leave campus. His convoluted logic: "It's a way to protect free speech. ... They can't disrupt your rights to freedom of expression." The anti-abortion group, it should be noted, was not "disrupting" anyone's expression: it made no noise, blocked no one's access to the other event, and allowed the other event to go forward undisturbed. The so-called "disruption" was the graphic nature of the images the group displayed--or, more precisely, was the reaction some had to the images. Rees eventually compromised with the group and allowed them to set up their posters elsewhere on campus. They did so, and then left an hour later. Chico State's student paper says that according to Rees, the group never informed the school that they were coming, adding that "If you come to somebody's place of business or education, you should let them know. ... I don't know of any campus that allows you to have events just anywhere." Rees is wrong in his equation of a public university campus with a private corporation, and wrong in his subsequent assumptions about both what other campuses do and what he can legally do himself. His logic--or lack thereof--is a transparently self-serving attempt to describe a decision to censor content as the exercise of content-neutral policy about time and place. The material displayed by the group was upsetting to those who felt oppressed by it, and that is why the group was asked to leave; that the group was asked to leave a free speech zone only makes Rees' pandering illiberalism all the more palpable.

The good news is that at least someone at Chico State gets it. In an editorial published in the school paper, one student writes, "After the shock of seeing the photos wore off, I was more disturbed by the reaction people had toward the photographs than the photos themselves." Read the whole thing.

Well, if that just isn't typical.

Fascinating, though, particularly to me, as I went to a private university that, naturally, had a legitimate free-speech zone. The only problems with speech that we ever had was people tearing down the signs and posters of organizations they did not like.

Erin, thanks for continuing to enlighten us about the antics of university life. I left a PhD program 30 years ago because of the first signs that there would be few jobs in my field. I actually drove a taxi for a few years until I got my bearings. At the time I was depressed about the decision, but after a while I realized it was the best decision I ever made. Now, I'm just glad I didn't spend my life in the university environment, which reminds me more and more of kindergarten.

What's so troubling about pictures of aborted fetuses? I used to think that this issue was pretty simple.

It isn't just free speech that's at issue here. In the feminist dominated environment of the campus, abortion is deemed an issue in which only one group has rights: women. Both Wendy McElroy and Camille Paglia have commented that the New York Times has virtually closed the door to any real debate about abortion, insisting that the only issue is women's rights.

Two other types of people have rights in relation to abortion: men and children. Well, I should say that men ought to have rights in their children, but that is no longer true as a matter of law. Children also have rights, and the right to exist might be the greatest of those rights. So, abortion is in fact an issue of competing rights.

Pictures of aborted fetuses seem to be particularly effective in reminding women that other people's rights are also at issue in abortion. I think that this is the source of the offense. The pictures impinge on women's consciences.

For those of you who are wondering what my position is, so that you can adequately categorize me... well, I'll try. Abortion is now being used as a backup form of birth control. This is wrong. Abortion should be available only in extremity. What that extremity is, I'll admit, is a cloudy issue for me.

Roe v. Wade is built on very shaky ground, as proponents of abortion know. Hence, their furious attempts to block any judicial appointment that might lead to the inevitable downfall of Wade. The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade was a black woman who later claimed that she was steamrolled into an abortion by feminists who saw her only as a convenient vehicle for their cause. That same plaintiff is now one of the most vocal and forceful opponents of Roe v. Wade. Any legal precedent built on such a shaky foundation has a very uncertain future.

More evidence of that imaginary "chimera" of pc that the obviously-biased FIRE is getting so unjustifiably worked up over in spite of the fact that no one's rights are ever being infringed and there's no liberal bias on university campuses and we never landed on the moon.

OK, sarcasm off. I just wonder how people can see/hear about/read this every day, from a hunfdred different sources, and still wander around under the delusion that there's nothing amis here. It boggles the mind.

No wonder I get interns and recent grads who are unable to handle any conflict. I work in the media and I expect to have staff who can argue their position or explain logical reasons for doing a story, etc. Young folks today melt under the cold glare of the light of logic (twisted syntax, sorry).

They all seem to think that saying "Because I feel ..." is enough.

Out of curiosity, let us say that a formerly important U.S. general was giving a speech at your university, and some protesters stood up in the back and held up large pictures of the bomb-gored Iraqi (or Afghan or Serbian or [diseased] Sudanese or Panamanian...) dead. The university police then take them away for disrupting the event.

What's your feeling on this not-so hypothetical scenario?

The issue in Polo's post is whether the demonstrators sought to prevent the Attorney General from continuing to speak.

If they did, then the police have the right to remove them. If they did not, then the police do not have the right to remove them.

It's not an issue of political affiliation, as Polo seems to suggest.

Polo, what if I said I agree that your not-so-hypothetical scenario sounds like an unjust infringement? Would you even believe me? Or are you just trying to prove something, like maybe everyone here is a hypocrite? Do you think your example justifies something else that happened in some other place and time? If not, what's your point?

Each and every time something like this is brought up, you can count on somebody poking their head into the discussion and shouting, "Yeah, but what about this other thing that happened this other time to somebody I agree with?" as if that makes any difference to the issue at hand.

But in answer to your question, my "feeling" (there's that word, Kate) is that your not-so-hypothetical situation was probably an injustice, assuming there was no heckling going on. That's a big assumption, of course. So does that make everything ok?

I_P_O,

Of course the struggle for the right to be heard must cross any ideological/racial/ social/you name it divide. Free speech is, as you suggest, just that.

There are many people (even amongst those who supported the war in Iraq) who are concerned that the war (and 9/11 and Afghanistan) has served as a smokescreen to increase pressure on dissent.

In fact, one need look no further than the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act to see how free-speech forces on both sides of the political divide have gone after Ashcroft. It was Dick Armey of all people, who deleted the horrific "Operation Tips" program out of the Homeland Security bill. In fact, Armey is on record as stating tht this Justice Department
is "out of control" and "the most dangerous agency of government."

Bob Barr, again of all people, is a consultant for the ACLU and has helped the ACLU put together a consortium of liberal (People for the American Way) and conservative (the Gun Owners of America) groups to assist in battling the diminishment of individual liberties.

I do not like (to put it mildly) either Barr or Armey - but I have to admit that their presence adds some credibility to the ACLU's arguments (sort of like how you suggested FIRE could add some balance).

But that does not diminish the fact that campus attacks on speech are just as likely (if not more so) in recent years to spring from 'the left' as from 'the right' - however you choose to define those terms.

This reminds me of a story I heard in a movie (about some mad genius of a painter and if anyone could tell me the name - I would like to rent it again - from about 1970 or so and the director did movies on a famous muscian and this one - the artist ) - everyone can stop reading now while I recount this useless story:

A beautiful eagle laid an egg and was busy sitting on it to provide sufficient heat for it to hatch. WHile zealously guarding the egg the eagle was viciously attacked by a rabid squirrel who happened to come upon the nest. Knowing that it was dying the eagle picked up its precious egg, flew over a cow pasture and ensconced the egg in a steaming pile of cow-dung - knowing it would generate sufficient heat for the egg to hatch. Well, hatch it did, the eaglet chipped away - but was not able to get itself out because it was stuck in the cow dung. So along came a wolf, who quite gently lifted the chick out of the egg - and promptly ate it for breakfast. The moral of the story: It isn't always your enemies who put you in the shit - and it isn't always your friends that get you out.

In the context of this post - perhaps it could be said that it isn't always ones ideolgical foes who step on free speech rights - and it ain't always your ideological friends that protect.

I will now repair to my local estasblishment for a very large whiskey-drink.

Stoly.

I would just point out to Sage that it's a good thing that Emerson's hobgoblin has very few hit points.

Of course, there's no reason that anyone should be offended by images of a mutilated fetus in the context of an abortion debate (I have seen this group in action on several campuses and have always found the blank sanctimony on their faces far more disturbing than their imagery), but I would just ask for a little "foolish consistency" on the part of those who advocate so strenously on the behalf of the right to express certain types of unpopular opinions.

Perfect consistency here, pal. Check out Volokh on UT today for more instances of the right's favorite "chimera" at work.

Check back here tomorrow for more sizzling chimerical action as well.

And take this with you: Never give your friends power that you wouldn't want your enemies to have. Think about it.

Stolypin,

I figured you had all the vices.

I have a few myself. In fact, I bought a Harley Road King last fall. It took me six months to figure out the basic math: If you ask pretty girls to sit on your Harley they will let you take their picture. Some of them will even put on their bikinis.

Talk about your freedom of speech.

Oh, I have all the vices all right - as I have been told time and time again.

Seems my aversion to motorcycles though has left me with room for improvement.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade was a black woman who later claimed that she was steamrolled into an abortion by feminists who saw her only as a convenient vehicle for their cause.

At the risk of being pedantic, you misspelled "white woman," as the photo on the cover of her book makes quite clear. She also says that she never had the abortion that she fought for the right to.

I'm not sure whether Jane Doe, in the other case before the court at the same time, was white or not, but it's irrelevant because the Court ruled that she and her husband had no standing and she was not considered in the decision.

Stoly, about your eagle chick story. You left out the most important lesson of the fable: when you're in it up to your neck, don't sing!

Stoly, about your eagle chick story. You left out the most important lesson of the fable: when you're in it up to your neck, don't sing!