ACLU Urges Federal Court to Block Florida Officials’ Unconstitutional Order to Deactivate Pro-Palestine Student Group
The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and Palestine Legal represent the University of Florida chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine in a lawsuit against state officials.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal argued that Florida officials’ attempt to deactivate the University of Florida chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is a clear violation of the students’ constitutional rights to free speech and association.
“The court acknowledged today that words have consequences, and we believe that they have consequences in this case,” said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. “Our client’s brave decision to challenge state officials’ attempt to restrict their speech sends the strong message that censorship is not only unconstitutional, but that it has no place in our schools.”
The ACLU and its partners urged the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to block Chancellor Ray Rodrigues and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ unconstitutional attempt to silence and punish the University of Florida chapter of SJP based on nothing more than the protected speech of the national SJP organization.
“With more than 25,000 Palestinians killed and more than 60,000 wounded, we see our organizing for the end to all the violence in Gaza as urgent and continuing, and this looming deactivation threat has left us terrified and disheartened,” said students with the University of Florida’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. “As the judge rightly recognized, ‘words have consequences’ and no matter what the ruling is, we can't let the government silence us or others like us.”
For decades, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. The Supreme Court has long recognized that right. As the ACLU argued, Florida’s attempt to deactivate the UF SJP violates the groups’ constitutional freedoms by enforcing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and association.
“This case is about protecting the role universities play as a place where important social issues can be vigorously debated — free from politicians’ attempts to censor viewpoints they disfavor,” said Howard Simon, interim executive director of the ACLU of Florida. “Florida officials must protect free speech on campus and, at the same time, ensure that all students can pursue their education free from targeted harassment and discrimination. Silencing pro-Palestinian voices neither protects students nor keeps colleges campuses safe.”
The lawsuit comes at a moment when there has been a dangerous surge in efforts across the country to censor students and professors voicing opposition to Israeli and/or U.S. government policies.
“As the court recognized today, the words of officials have real consequences. SJP's activism sits squarely in the tradition of students speaking out against war and injustice,” said Radhika Sainath, senior staff attorney with Palestine Legal. “The deactivation order puts these students at real risk in a moment when their speech matters more than ever.”
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.