Table of Contents
Speech Code of the Month: University of West Alabama
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for January 2014: the University of West Alabama (UWA).
The University of West Alabama has a new policy prohibiting 鈥淐yberbullying and Cyber Harassment鈥 (PDF) that subjects virtually every student and faculty member on campus to punishment. That is because the policy defines cyberbullying to include not only unlawful conduct and unprotected speech, but also 鈥渉arsh text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.鈥
Go ahead and read that one again: 鈥渉arsh text messages or emails.鈥 Given that a 鈥渉arsh鈥 text or email would include anything from criticizing a sloppily drafted report, to reprimanding a child, to expressing frustration at a spouse who forgot to take out the trash, I鈥檓 going to guess that most of us have sent a 鈥渉arsh鈥 text message or email in the very recent past. Heck, if I emailed this blog entry around, UWA administrators could interpret it as violating this policy.
As someone in the UWA administration should surely know, the First Amendment鈥攚hich applies with full force at a public university like UWA鈥攑rotects our right to speak in harsh and critical ways. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988), 鈥淸I]n public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide 鈥榓dequate 鈥渂reathing space鈥 to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment鈥欌 (internal citations omitted). Indeed, 鈥渁 function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.鈥 Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949).
By prohibiting speech in which everyone engages, UWA has all but guaranteed that this policy will be enforced in an arbitrary and unfair manner. There is simply no way that UWA can police every instance of 鈥渉arsh鈥 emailing or text messaging on its campus. Therefore, students鈥 and faculty members鈥 free speech rights exist at the mercy of the administration, which has total discretion over how and when to enforce this overly broad policy. And because 鈥渉arsh鈥 is such a general and subjective term, students will be left to guess at what might be punishable, rendering the policy unconstitutionally vague. (A law must 鈥済ive a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly,鈥 or else it is unconstitutionally vague. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108鈥09 (1972).)
While the ban on 鈥渉arsh鈥 speech and expression is far and away the worst part of the policy, even the other examples of cyberbullying鈥攔umors and embarrassing pictures鈥攁re not necessarily devoid of constitutional protection. Certainly, spreading certain types of rumors or posting certain types of pictures may implicate libel or invasion of privacy. But remember that libel only applies to false statements, so sharing unpleasant but truthful gossip about someone is probably protected unless the information was obtained in a way that unlawfully invaded that person鈥檚 privacy. Similarly, if you were photographed doing something embarrassing in a public place (or in an arguably private place, as in the case of Anthony Weiner) you may not be able to prevent another person from sharing that picture, however unkind it may be to do so.
Policies like UWA鈥檚 are typically well-intentioned. We鈥檝e all read about of conduct that we would probably call 鈥渃yberbullying鈥濃攃onduct that, in most cases, is already prohibited by existing laws on harassment, stalking, extortion, invasion of privacy, and so forth. And we all understand the need to protect people from this kind of life-altering harassment. But banning all 鈥渉arsh鈥 online speech in an effort to do so is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. This unconstitutional policy simply cannot stand at a public university like UWA.
For these reasons, UWA is our January 2014 Speech Code of the Month.
If you believe that your college鈥檚 or university鈥檚 policy should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code. If you are a current college student or faculty member interested in free speech, consider joining 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 Campus Freedom Network, an organization of college faculty members and students dedicated to advancing individual liberties on their campuses. You can also add 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 Speech Code of the Month widget to your blog or website and help shed some much-needed sunlight on these repressive policies.
Image: Webb Hall on UWA campus -
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.