Campus Discourse and Democracy: Free Speech Principles Provide Sound Guidance Even after the Tumult of 2017

Catherine J. Ross
{"title":"Campus Discourse and Democracy: Free Speech Principles Provide Sound Guidance Even after the Tumult of 2017","authors":"Catherine J. Ross","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3228056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article argues that First Amendment doctrine provides a nuanced and adequate framework for responding to contemporary challenges involving the intersection of free speech, protests, outside agitators, and the risk of violence on college campuses. The Article places contemporary events and concerns in the context of classic free speech doctrine—which binds all public colleges and universities and which many privately-run colleges voluntarily commit to respecting. It also analyzes the import of the unique mission of universities as set out in three seminal university reports on freedom of expression that emphasize intellectual freedom, “full freedom of dissent,” and the imperative of protecting views that many find deeply offensive. Using three highly publicized examples of what many regard as the transformation of colleges into political battlegrounds—events in 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and Richard Spencer’s talk at the University of Florida—this Article provides taxonomies of how outsiders come to speak at campuses, and how they come to be disinvited or prevented from speaking, along with explanations of what the Speech Clause prohibits and permits. The Article provides constitutional and pragmatic guidance respecting best practices for balancing the need to preserve safety in the face of imminent violence (including the presence of weapons)—which requires a real, proximate risk attributable to the speaker before expression can be silenced—against the requirements of the Speech Clause and the sometimes competing imperatives of respecting dignity and equality for all members of the campus community.","PeriodicalId":90761,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","volume":"20 1","pages":"787"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3228056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article argues that First Amendment doctrine provides a nuanced and adequate framework for responding to contemporary challenges involving the intersection of free speech, protests, outside agitators, and the risk of violence on college campuses. The Article places contemporary events and concerns in the context of classic free speech doctrine—which binds all public colleges and universities and which many privately-run colleges voluntarily commit to respecting. It also analyzes the import of the unique mission of universities as set out in three seminal university reports on freedom of expression that emphasize intellectual freedom, “full freedom of dissent,” and the imperative of protecting views that many find deeply offensive. Using three highly publicized examples of what many regard as the transformation of colleges into political battlegrounds—events in 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and Richard Spencer’s talk at the University of Florida—this Article provides taxonomies of how outsiders come to speak at campuses, and how they come to be disinvited or prevented from speaking, along with explanations of what the Speech Clause prohibits and permits. The Article provides constitutional and pragmatic guidance respecting best practices for balancing the need to preserve safety in the face of imminent violence (including the presence of weapons)—which requires a real, proximate risk attributable to the speaker before expression can be silenced—against the requirements of the Speech Clause and the sometimes competing imperatives of respecting dignity and equality for all members of the campus community.
校园话语与民主:言论自由原则即使在2017年大选后也能提供良好的指导
这篇文章认为,第一修正案原则为应对当代挑战提供了一个微妙而充分的框架,这些挑战涉及言论自由、抗议、外部煽动者和大学校园暴力风险。这篇文章将当代事件和关注放在经典的言论自由主义的背景下,这一原则约束着所有公立学院和大学,许多私立学院自愿承诺尊重这一原则。它还分析了三份关于言论自由的开创性大学报告中所阐述的大学独特使命的重要性,这些报告强调了知识自由、“完全的异议自由”以及保护许多人深感冒犯的观点的必要性。这篇文章使用了三个被许多人视为大学转变为政治战场的例子——2017年加州大学伯克利分校的事件、弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔的“团结右翼”集会和理查德·斯宾塞在佛罗里达大学的演讲——提供了局外人如何在校园里发言的分类法,以及他们是如何被取消邀请或阻止发言的,以及对言论条款禁止和允许的内容的解释。该条款提供了宪法和务实的指导,尊重在面临迫在眉睫的暴力(包括武器的存在)时平衡维护安全的必要性的最佳做法,在言论被压制之前,演讲者面临的直接风险——违反了言论条款的要求,以及有时相互竞争的尊重校园社区所有成员尊严和平等的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信