It’s safe again for college students in California to protest terrorism. This week, a federal judge ordered San Francisco State University (SFSU) and the California State University system to abolish several speech codes that had been used to drag two SFSU College Republicans before a college tribunal for stomping on makeshift Hamas and Hezbollah flags during an anti-terrorism rally in October 2006. Following the rally, an SFSU student filed a complaint that the College Republicans engaged in “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “actions of incivility.” SFSU bureaucrats investigated the College Republicans for five months and held a hearing in March 2007 when the charges were finally dismissed. The university’s “civility” policy was struck down by Judge Wayne Brazil because the Alliance Defense Fund and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed a lawsuit challenging the speech code. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
The 417,000 students at California State University’s 28 campuses are expected to be civil to one another, the university says in its policy manual. It sounds innocuous – but a federal magistrate says it’s an unconstitutional restriction on speech when the policy is used to investigate or discipline students, such as the College Republicans whose members stomped on two flags bearing the name of Allah during an anti-terrorism rally at San Francisco State last year. “It might be fine for the university to say, ‘Hey, we hope you folks are civil to one another,’ ” U.S. Magistrate Wayne Brazil said last week at a hearing in his Oakland courtroom. “But it’s not fine for the university to say, ‘If you’re not civil, whatever that means, we’re going to punish you.’ ” Brazil said he would issue a preliminary injunction barring the university from enforcing the civility standard in any disciplinary proceeding. He said the university can continue to enforce another rule disputed by the College Republicans – prohibiting intimidation or harassment – but can use the rule to punish students only for threatening someone’s health or safety, and not merely for offensive statements or conduct. The ruling, which has not yet been issued in writing, was a victory for conservative legal organizations that have filed suits around the nation challenging colleges’ speech codes.
Are “conservative legal organizations” really the only ones who think this is a victory for free speech?
