果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

Minnesota police unions call for investigations into student鈥檚 comments advocating civil disobedience

University of Minnesota Police Department

A University of Minnesota Police Department squad car in Downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Tony Webster / via Wikimedia Commons)

Just days after the Minnesota Student Association demanded the resignation of University of Minnesota Police Chief Matthew Clark, saying he has 鈥渇ailed to increase campus wellness and safety for students of color,鈥 two police unions 鈥 including the union representing the university force 鈥 have called for university and criminal investigations into a prominent student association leader. In a press release, the unions offer a video clip in which she appeared to encourage others to 鈥渁nnoy鈥 police and 鈥渦se up their resources.鈥

Putting aside the absurdity of a university declaring that 鈥渋deas are illegal,鈥 it is exceedingly unlikely that Meyers鈥 remarks are not protected by the First Amendment. 

UMPD has been embroiled in controversy for weeks since university officers were seen quell protests that followed the police killing of Daunte Wright. Crowd control tactics that day included use of pepper balls, flashbangs, and tear gas. Those events, coupled with what students described as Clark鈥檚 failure to act 鈥渙n the countless accusations of discrimination鈥 on campus, prompted the Minnesota Student Association 鈥 the undergraduate student government at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 鈥 to call for his resignation last week.

In a of the April 14, 2021, executive board meeting of the Minnesota Student Association, Chief Financial Officer Lauren Meyers was asked, 鈥淲hen you say 鈥榙isrupt UMPD,鈥 what exactly do you mean by that?鈥

She responded, 鈥淢ake their lives hell. Annoy the shit out of them 鈥 Like, use up their resources. Make their officers show up to something.鈥

Backlash against Meyers was swift. , the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association and Law Enforcement Labor Services, which represents UMPD, decried Meyers' words as 鈥渞epulsive and dangerous鈥 and called on the university administration 鈥渢o initiate an investigation into this incident for Student Code of Conduct violations鈥 and to 鈥渉ave an outside agency conduct a criminal investigation into this incident to determine if charges are warranted.鈥 The unions鈥 includes a list of state statutes and student conduct policies they believe apply to Meyers鈥 conduct.

A spokesperson for the university slammed Meyers鈥 remarks in an , saying, 鈥淭hese ideas are illegal and would directly conflict with ongoing efforts to keep our campus community safe.鈥

Putting aside the absurdity of a university declaring that 鈥渋deas are illegal,鈥 it is exceedingly unlikely that Meyers鈥 remarks are not protected by the First Amendment. 

To the extent that her remarks, or the letter issued by the Minnesota Student Association, encourage others to take action of any sort, a general call for future action 鈥 including unlawful action 鈥 remains protected speech because its timing is at some indefinite point in the future. Advocacy of 鈥渓awless action鈥 is only unprotected incitement if it is intended and likely to result in imminent unlawful activity. It鈥檚 also not clear that Meyers was advocating unlawful activity: It is generally lawful to be annoying to police, and the First Amendment continues to protect speech even if it causes 鈥public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.鈥 It would presumably also be lawful to report petty crimes 鈥 say, jaywalking 鈥 to police officers, provided those reports are truthful. It would not be lawful to make false reports to the police, but Meyers did not say others should file false police reports. 

And, of course, nothing about Meyers鈥 comments indicates that she has already done anything prohibited by Minnesota law, despite claims by the police unions that her speech may violate criminal law or university policy.

That鈥檚 not to endorse (or condemn) the speech itself. But when those representing law enforcement officers call for action that jeopardizes the First Amendment rights of their critics, they risk undermining public confidence that police understand the law. As the Supreme Court has explained, police 鈥渕ay reasonably be expected to 鈥榚xercise a higher degree of restraint鈥 than the average citizen鈥 in how they respond to public criticism 鈥 at least in performing their official functions 鈥 as the freedom to voice 鈥渙ppos[ition] or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.鈥 

FIRE urges the university鈥檚 administration to show restraint and respect for freedom of expression, as controversial as Meyers鈥 words may have been, by rejecting calls for investigations or punishment.

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share