Table of Contents
U. of Oregon Student Senator Adopts Administration鈥檚 Misguided Views on Speech
Happily, Associated FIREof the University of Oregon (ASUO) Senate Vice President Miles Sisk seems to be carrying out his anonymous bloggers to the administration. Nevertheless, students at UO still have reason to worry about their freedom of speech on campus.
Two weeks ago, Sisk characterized students criticizing Senate members on the internet as 鈥渃yber-bullying.鈥 According to UO student newspaper the , Sisk demanded that blogs engaging in this speech be shut down, and he threatened to report the IP addresses of those running the blogs to the administration if they remained online. Sisk called the bloggers 鈥渃riminals,鈥 and Senate President Rebecca Rhodes called the blogs 鈥渃ompletely unacceptable.鈥
The wrote that 鈥淸t]he exact blogs in question have not been revealed, but repeat offenders and 鈥 which created controversy in the ASUO last year 鈥 are suspects.鈥 Though FIREstaff members haven鈥檛 combed through the entire archives of the Tumblr blogs at issue, we鈥檝e checked out quite a few posts and have yet to find even one that comes anywhere close to containing true threats or other speech that would be unprotected by the First Amendment at a public university like UO. (Feel free to decide for yourself, using the links above.) Of course, the burden is on would-be censors like Sisk and Rhodes to demonstrate how the specific expression they would shut down or punish is unprotected. There鈥檚 no suggestion in any reporting on the issue that Sisk or Rhodes have even attempted to do so.
What Oregon students should be most concerned about is the fact that their elected leaders are trying to censor criticism of student senators rather than simply responding to the opinions expressed on the blogs or inviting students to discuss their remarks further. Sisk seems unable to distinguish between statements that might hurt someone鈥檚 feelings and harassment or other punishable conduct.
It鈥檚 not surprising that Sisk would have this trouble, however. After all, the UO administration doesn鈥檛 seem to understand this distinction, either. UO maintains several speech codes that are either unconstitutionally broad or can easily be used to punish protected speech. For example, UO鈥檚 harassment policy prohibits 鈥淸u]nreasonable insults, gestures, or abusive words鈥 that may cause 鈥渆motional distress鈥濃攁 range of expression far broader than what is considered harassment under the law.
And as FIREwrote earlier this year, UO charged a student with five conduct code violations (including harassment) this past spring for jokingly yelling 鈥淚 hit it first鈥 at a couple below her dorm room window. The charges were dropped only after FIREwrote to the university鈥攁nd even after that, UO stubbornly insisted that the student鈥檚 鈥渂ehavior may be a violation鈥 of the student conduct code.
UO seems to be standing by its policies, despite 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 repeated explanations of why they should be revised to ensure that student free speech rights are fully protected. The Emerald reported:
Chicora Martin, Assistant Dean of 果冻传媒app官方, offered some insight into what kinds of harassing behaviors would engender action on the part of the university.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a specific code by which we deal with cyberbullying, and online or not, we go by the same criteria. If the content is perceived as threatening either physically or emotionally, there could be formal conduct charges brought,鈥 Martin said. She recommended a reviewal of the for anyone seeking clarification regarding unacceptable behavior and the potential sanctions.
Martin鈥檚 statement that UO might punish 鈥渃ontent 鈥 perceived as threatening 鈥 emotionally鈥 is consistent with UO鈥檚 (unconstitutional) student code of conduct. But it is inconsistent with UO鈥檚 legal and moral obligation under the First Amendment to uphold students鈥 rights to free expression. This is not just a legal issue, but a question of common sense. Any substantial criticism could affect a person emotionally. Freedom of speech means very little if it excludes the right to frankly criticize elected leaders for fear that it will have a negative impact on those leaders鈥 emotions.
FIRE hopes that students speak out to defend their rights. UO should have taken steps to revise its speech codes long ago, and it is now obvious that its students are learning the wrong lessons about how free speech works in America. It is essential that students be able to voice their opinions about those in power鈥攅ven anonymously鈥攚ithout fear of reprisal.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.