Archive for April, 2008

Student Committee On Free Speech Members

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

Chazz Clevinger, Chair

Cristobal Palmer, Vice-Chair

Ryan Bregier, Vice-Chair

Michael Cronce, Member

Kathleen Rose, Member

Frank Sturges, Member

Tim Nichols, Member

Keith Gordon, Member

Crandall Close, Member

Monday 14th April 2008 meeting notes

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Institutional Policy:

  • “free speech zones” where instituted are being struck down when challenged (never used here at UNC).
  • implied move towards room scheduling vs. outdoor space.
  • 4 pages worth of notes, will break into sub-areas and publish later.

Survey/Forum:

  • interviews to go up on youtube. need volunteers to get on camera.
  • where to publicize survey? will get out via email lists.

Monday 7th April 2008 meeting notes

Monday, April 7th, 2008

Institutional Policy:

  • not easily, comprehensively web-accessible
  • scattered across various sub-sites
  • UNC-G abandoned an effort to present comprehensive policy
  • non-university entities have reviews of campus policies, heavily slanted
    • based on issue
    • based on political leaning
  • speaking with someone in administration a top priority

Case Law:

  • via email (members not present)
  • meeting with someone in University Counsel’s office a priority

Survey:

  • draft in surveymonkey
  • waiting for more feedback from other groups before offering to public

content-neutral restrictions: are they really?

Sunday, April 6th, 2008

The last post tried to tease out the distinction between content-neutral restrictions (eg. “no soliciting”) and content-based restrictions (eg. restriction on publication of maps detailing military base layouts) through some questions and some links to other reading. The question I’d like people to address for themselves is if “content-neutral” restrictions ever can be. Any restrictions that are set must be enforced, and unequal enforcement based on content suddenly turns a content-neutral restriction into a content-based one. So the question is then who does the enforcement? How is the enforcement carried out? Does everyone trust that the enforcement will be fair and truly be content-neutral?

So, can content-neutral restrictions on speech ever really be content-neutral? Are some kinds of restrictions more likely to be abused by those enforcing them than others?

what is it not?

Sunday, April 6th, 2008

In talking to people on background, a bunch are saying some variation of, “To define what free speech is, you have to define what it is not.” While I personally don’t believe that that is the case, I can see how that would be valuable for some people. How do we frame that, then? Maybe we should ask, “When (if ever) is it okay to restrict speech?” How do we hit all of Time, Place, Manner in one go? Do people even know what “Time, Place, Manner” is a reference to? I hope so. Below are some possible survey questions to get people talking about what sort of restrictions can or should be placed on expression.

  • What should the venue be for determining whether a particular incident was inappropriate and sanctionable? Honor Court? The dean?
  • What sort of regulations or restrictions can be enforced before speech happens? Should policies only provide for what happens after expression that someone deems inappropriate?
  • Please give both a definition and an example of inappropriate classroom speech.
  • Please give both a definition and an example of inappropriate speech in the Pit.
  • Please give both a definition and an example of inappropriate speech in gyms, pools, and other exercise facilities on campus.
  • If the above are different at all, please explain why.
  • What if any penalties should there be for for each of the foregoing examples you gave? Please explain how any penalties would be imposed
  • What content-neutral speech restrictions do you think are NOT okay? (hypothetical content-neutral restriction: use of bullhorn in classroom not permitted to protect hearing of students)
  • What is the judicial standard for content-based restrictions on speech? (hint)
  • What content-based restrictions on speech are, in your personal view, ever okay? What general rule would you give for determining whether or not a particular content-based restriction is okay?

I think it’s important to take a moment to consider the possibilities for abuse inherent in any restriction, even seemingly innocuous noise ordinances. What if somebody decided that “abortion” was such a controversial term that it couldn’t be used as an index term for searching a database?