Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Anti-Palestinian Fliers Lead to Calls for Police Investigation; Police Say They 
Are Free Speech:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_15-2009_03_21.shtml#1237325123


   [1]The University of Maryland Diamondback reports:

     University of Maryland Palestinian students and supporters were
     confronted with malevolent opposition Tuesday in the form of
     posters bearing vivid anti-Palestine propaganda that students said
     made them feel threatened, though it did not stop Palestinian
     Solidarity Week from continuing Wednesday night....

     One such flier depicted a woman, wearing a traditional Muslim burqa
     and holding an AK-47 in one hand and a bomb-toting baby in the
     other. "What did she teach her child today?" was written above the
     picture.

     This poster and others like it were found after Tuesday's "What
     would MLK Say About Gaza?" event, which was hosted by several
     student organizations....

     Senior dietetics major Gisica Abdallah was at Tuesday's event --
     which was held in Jimenez Hall -- when her friends brought the
     posters to her attention....

     "They were everywhere," Abdallah said. "The hatred that was
     portrayed, that was the most hurtful thing."

     Abdallah then began tearing down as many signs as she could before
     running to the Stamp Student Union, where she brought the fliers to
     Vice President for Student Affairs Linda Clement.

     "[The posters] made a number of our students feel very
     uncomfortable," Clement said. "We have been doing things all day to
     investigate the incident. ... We have people examining surveillance
     tapes in the union and will be working with University Police to
     try and figure out who did this." ...

   A [2]University of Maryland Police spokesman reports that the
   department concluded that, "Basically, these fliers were free speech,
   [p]lain and simple."

   But the university administration seems to take a different view:

     The fliers ... were in violation of the university's policy on free
     speech ....

     "There's such a thing as free speech," [Vice President for Student
     Affairs Linda Clement] said. "But when you post things anonymously
     and make others feel threatened, that's not free speech."

   A few thoughts:

   1. If the signs were in violation of a valid and content-neutral
   posting policy (e.g., that one can't post signs on building walls),
   they might indeed be properly punished, and removed.

   2. Likewise, if there was a policy banning anonymous postings on
   university bulletin boards, it might be constitutional. The government
   may not ban anonymous speech generally, but it's possible -- though
   not fully settled -- that the university may indeed restrict anonymous
   posting on property that it voluntarily opens up for student access.
   This wouldn't make the posters illegal (unless they were seen as some
   sort of trespass, which I doubt), but perhaps it might justify the
   removal.

   3. But if those aren't the rationales, and the university views the
   posters as unprotected -- and is willing to countenance their removal
   by students -- because of the message they express, then the
   university may do so only if the speech really falls within the narrow
   First Amendment exception for threats. Judging by the newspaper
   account, and by the police department's conclusion, there seems to be
   no evidence of that here. If any of you can point me to the actual
   posters involved, I'd love to analyze them (and link to them so
   readers can make the judgment for themselves).

   Of course, there's the now customary [3]quote about the "difference
   between free speech and hate speech":

     "There is a difference between free speech and hate speech," said
     government and politics and Spanish language and literature major
     Sana Javed, who helped to organize Palestinian Solidarity Week.
     "They were an irrelevant commentary on Islam, but we were talking
     about politics."

   No, there is no such difference under First Amendment law. Nor does
   First Amendment law draw a distinction between "commentary on Islam"
   (or Christianity or Judaism or atheism or whatever else) and "talking
   about politics," since much commentary on religion is commentary on
   politics.

References

   1. http://www.uwire.com/Article.aspx?id=3834080
   2. http://www.uwire.com/Article.aspx?id=3855972
   3. http://www.uwire.com/Article.aspx?id=3855972

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to