Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night
Five years ago, Brandon Creighton, a Republican who represents parts of five southeastern Texas counties in the state Senate, co-sponsored a law, Senate Bill 18, aimed at protecting freedom of expression at public universities. This year, Creighton introduced a bill, S.B. 2972, that would dial back those protections. Civil libertarians are urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the new bill, warning that it contradicts the state's avowed commitment to vigorous debate representing a wide range of viewpoints.
In a recent Houston Chronicle op-ed piece, First Amendment lawyer Caitlin Vogus and journalist Jimena Pinzon call S.B. 2972 "one of the most ridiculous anti-speech laws in the country." Among other things, they note, the bill includes an "unfathomably broad" provision that "would ban speech at night—from study groups to newspaper reporting—at public universities in the state." If Abbott signs the bill, they say, "it will inevitably face a First Amendment challenge that Texas simply can't win."
Why have Texas legislators retreated from their support for free speech on campus? In 2019, Republicans were worried about university speech restrictions that discriminated against or disproportionately affected conservatives. Nowadays, they are worried about potentially disruptive anti-Israel activity by left-leaning protesters. But that sort of contingent support for freedom of speech undermines the principle that legislators defended in 2019, which protects speakers regardless of their opinions, ideology, or political affiliation.
S.B. 18, which Abbott proudly signed after it passed the state legislature with broad, bipartisan support, declared that "freedom of expression is of critical importance and requires each public institution of higher education to ensure free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberations." To promote that "uninhibited debate," the law recognized that "all persons may assemble peaceably on the campuses of institutions of higher education for expressive activities, including to listen to or observe the expressive activities of others."
S.B. 18 also stipulated that "common outdoor areas" on public university campuses "are deemed traditional public forums," meaning they are open to lawful expressive activity as long as it "does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the institution." And the law sought to protect invited speakers from ideological discrimination by barring public universities from considering content, viewpoint, or "any anticipated controversy" in setting fees for using campus facilities.
"Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech in America, some colleges in Texas were banning free speech on campus," Abbott explained in 2020. "No more. I signed Senate Bill 18…into law to protect free speech on Texas college campuses."
S.B. 2972 moves in the opposite direction. It qualifies the right of "all persons" to peacefully assemble for expressive activities by limiting it to a university's students and employees. It allows restrictions on the use of "common outdoor areas" that are "reasonable in light of the purpose of the area to which the restrictions apply," giving administrators more discretion than S.B. 18, which allows "time, place, and manner" rules that are "narrowly tailored to serve a significant public purpose." And while current law requires that such restrictions be "content-neutral" as well as "viewpoint-neutral," S.B. 2972 removes the former requirement.
The new bill also allows a university to "designate the areas on the institution's campus that are public forums," which sound like the "free speech zones" that have provoked First Amendment challenges. It deletes the current requirement that universities "provide for ample alternative means of expression."
S.B. 2972 targets tactics associated with campus protests against the war in Gaza. It prohibits the use of sound amplification, "drums or other percussive instruments," and masks or "other means of concealing a person's identity" when the aim is to "obstruct" enforcement of a university's rules, "interfere" with the work of police or university employees, or "intimidate others."
Two other provisions are especially striking. The bill requires universities to prohibit student groups from "inviting speakers to speak on campus" during the last two weeks of a semester and instructs them to ban "expressive activities on campus" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.—a vague and potentially sweeping restriction that could affect a wide range of constitutionally protected conduct.
"Both laws protect the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and staff," Creighton told the Austin American-Statesman in May. "S.B. 2972 ensures that speech stays free, protest stays peaceful, and chaos never takes hold." But as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) noted in a June 5 letter urging Abbott to veto the bill, the new restrictions "would significantly undermine Texas' strong statutory protections for student and faculty expression on public college campuses."
Tyler Coward, FIRE's lead counsel for government affairs, warned that S.B. 2972 "permits restrictions on expressive activity based only on anticipated disruption, thereby encouraging shout-downs and allowing the use of a 'heckler's veto' that courts have repeatedly held violates the First Amendment." It also "removes the requirement that institutions designate open outdoor areas as public forums, despite longstanding judicial precedent affirming their public forum status."
The bill's "blanket ban on expressive activities" between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. is so broad that it "would prohibit students from wearing expressive apparel like a MAGA shirt or hat during those times," Coward wrote. In May, he noted, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against "Indiana University's policy restricting expressive activities between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m." after concluding that it probably violated the First Amendment.
Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist who is a senior scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, also was struck by the expansive language of S.B. 2972's ban on "expressive activities" late at night or early in the morning, which probably was inspired by overnight anti-Israel protests but sweeps much more broadly. Under that rule, Volokh suggested in an interview with The New York Times, "talking to friends, wearing message-bearing T-shirts or, for that matter, reading a book or your phone or playing a video game or watching TV in your room" could trigger disciplinary action.
"Are universities likely to enforce their statutorily mandated policies banning overnight speech against students engaged in speech like that?" Vogus and Pinzon write. "Probably not. But they could, and that shows just how sloppy and overbroad this law is." They suggest universities could "use such policies selectively to crack down on disfavored speech." If administrators discover that "the student newspaper's editors discussed and wrote an editorial ripping a university policy to shreds while on campus in the wee hours of the morning," for example, "the ban on overnight speech would provide a solid tool for retaliation."
In his letter to Abbott, Coward acknowledged Texas legislators' concerns about "campus protests elsewhere that may have crossed existing legal lines." But he noted that "colleges and universities already possess ample authority to address materially and substantially disruptive conduct."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas shares FIRE's concerns. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs," says Caro Achar, the organization's engagement coordinator for free speech. "This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus—undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public."
The post Texas Legislators Say They Are Protecting Free Speech on Campus by Banning 'Expressive Activities' at Night appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tulsi Gabbard Flips Sides in MAGA Civil War Over Iran's Nuclear Capabilities
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has flipped her stance on Iran after President Donald Trump nuked her intelligence as 'wrong.' Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 25 that there was no intelligence to suggest Iran was building nuclear weapons, though the country had enriched its uranium to higher levels. Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's June 12 'preemptive' strike on Iran—which he justified by saying that the country has a 'secret plan' to weaponize uranium—Trump sided with Israel's countervailing position. On two separate occasions this week, Trump rebuffed Gabbard's earlier assessment of Iran's nuclear program. 'I don't care what [Gabbard] said,' Trump said aboard Air Force One. 'I think they were very close to having one.' In another comment on Wednesday, the president added that Iran was 'a few weeks' away from turning their uranium into a weapon, echoing similar sentiments shared by Netanyahu. Then on Friday, Gabbard fell in line with Trump, attacking the media for having the gall to believe what she said. 'The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,' Gabbard wrote to her 600K followers. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly.' She added, 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Gabbard included a clip of what she called her 'full testimony,' which has since racked up 8.9 million views. The world has been thrown into a state of limbo while Trump weighs a decision on whether to get the United States involved in strikes on Iran, a decision the country warned would be 'very dangerous.' In a statement read on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump said he would make his decision 'within the next two weeks' based on the fact that there 'is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Reuters reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with a group of European diplomats in Geneva on Friday for nuclear talks.
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Interventionists vs isolationists, GOP split on Iran
All times eastern Fox Report with Jon Scott Fox Report with Jon Scott FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Failed senate candidate Beto O'Rourke joins Senator Bernie Sanders on the 'Fighting Oligarchy' Tour
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Filing for city elections has opened
Filing to run for a position on Huntsville City Council opened on Thursday, June 19. There are five positions up for election, including the Mayor and all four ward positions. The November 4, 2025 election is a Constitutional Amendment Election. Terms for election are for three year terms following the charter changes of 2023. 2025 Candidate packet Current Mayor Russell Humphrey announced his reelection campaign during a meet and greet held June 5th at Humphrey's Bar and Grill. The sitting ward members are Councilmember Ward 1 Tore Fossum, Councilmember Ward 2 Casey Cox, Councilmember Ward 3 Anissa Antwine, and Councilmember Ward 4 Jon Strong. Antwine announced her run for reelection on Saturday, June 14, during her Juneteenth address at the MLK Community Center. Strong confirmed he too will be seeking reelection. 'There is still important work to do to change the tree ordinance to preserve more of the east Texas forest. There is a tree ordinance passed in 2021, but it appears to be ineffective,' said Fossum, when he confirmed his campaign Friday. 'Further, the most important functions the city does are the clean safe drinking water and safely disposing of the sewage. Much of the infrastructure is decades old and deteriorating. The drainage comes next and that is a difficult topic because we can go years or decades between destructive heavy rain events as we saw in October of 2023 and May of 2024. Many of those who had water intrusion for the first time could protect their houses with swales and berms. However, the city does not pay for that. Clear cutting on higher land contributed to that at Elkins Lake.' Cox had no response as of press time Friday afternoon. Running for City Council To qualify as a candidate for city council, there are several requirements: — At the time of election to office and during their tenure of office, the Mayor and each member of the Council shall be a citizen and a qualified registered voter of the State of Texas and the City of Huntsville. — Be at least 21 years of age on the date of the election. — Be a resident of the City for at least 12 months preceding the election. — Resided continuously in the state of Texas for 12 months preceding the date of the regular filing deadline for a candidate's application for a place on the ballot. — If running for a specific Ward, the candidate must be a resident of that Ward. — No member of the Council shall be indebted to the City or be delinquent in the payment to the City of any tax or assessment. — No member of the Council shall hold any other office or employment under the City government. — Be a citizen of the United States. — Have not been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote; and — Have not been finally convicted of a felony from which the candidate has not been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities. Candidates are also subject to the requirements of the State's nepotism law, conflicts of interest law, and the loyalty clause. According to the city's election page, a member of the council ceasing to possess any of the qualifications will immediately forfeit their office. To be eligible as a candidate for councilmember from a specific ward, a person must be a resident of such ward.
