Free Speech Organizations Urge University of Maryland to Lift Unconstitutional ‘Expressive Event’ Ban
In Friend-of-the-Court Brief, ACLU, FIRE, and Knight Institute Argue UMD’s 10/7 Expressive Event Ban Violates Students’ First Amendment Rights
BALTIMORE — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief last night in support of University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine's lawsuit, which challenges the university’s ban on all student-led expressive events scheduled for Oct. 7. The free speech organizations argue that the university's ban is unconstitutional because the restriction singles out speech based on its message and fails to meet the high bar therefore required by the First Amendment to justify it.
“Imposing a blanket ban on student speech because of its message — and more precisely, because people find the students’ message controversial or provocative — completely undercuts the University of Maryland’s function as a place of learning, dialogue, and the robust exchange of ideas, and is a clear violation of students’ First Amendment rights,” said Nick Taichi Steiner at ACLU of Maryland. “The university should lift this ban and allow UMD Students for Justice in Palestine to hold their vigil.”
The Council for American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal represent the University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine, which initially received university permission to host a vigil on the anniversary of Oct. 7 to mourn lives lost in Gaza over the past year. However, after facing complaints about the event and the sponsor, the University of Maryland revoked its permission. The university subsequently instituted a blanket ban on all student-led “expressive events” for Oct. 7, and declared that the university system would allow only “university-sponsored events that promote reflection.”
“While we appreciate the University of Maryland’s desire to acknowledge the pain this day may cause students, censorship is not the appropriate response,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Instead of silencing students and policing their grief, the university should uphold its commitment to fostering an environment where all students can freely express their views, even on the most challenging days."
The amicus explains that this ban is a clear effort to silence speech about Israel and Palestine — and SJP’s message in particular — because the university limited it to a uniquely salient day, and was only declared after others voiced their displeasure with the vigil. The amicus also explains that, even if the ban were not focused on burdening particular messages, it would still be unreasonable, both because it would undercut the public university's core function of encouraging free debate and open dialogue, and because it would be impossible to discern what kinds of events are allowed on UMD campuses that day and what are not.
“The University of Maryland can’t hit pause on the First Amendment. Not on October 7th, or ever,” said Alex Morey, FIRE’s vice president of Campus Advocacy. “FIRE is gratified to stand with the free expression advocates at the ACLU and the Knight First Amendment Institute, defending all UMD students’ right to speak out."
Related Documents
Open Letter to College and University Presidents on Student Protests
Academic freedom and free speech are essential. Universities must protect them.
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
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.