Last week, an assassin silenced speech on a college campus. A family lost a father and a husband. As we have said without equivocation, political violence is never an acceptable response to free speech.
Appropriately, we can expect colleges and universities to place even greater emphasis on safety and security ahead of outside speakers arriving on campus moving forward. They have a moral and legal obligation to redouble their efforts to protect free speech as well as their campus community. However, administrators must not pass those security costs along to speakers or use security concerns as pretext to cancel a speaker’s appearance. Rewarding threats of violence by taxing speech or silencing speakers will only invite more threats and more violence.
Just as there is undeniable risk in hosting controversial speakers, there is infinite risk in surrendering the marketplace of ideas to the heckler’s veto.
In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), the Supreme Court determined that government actors — like public college or university administrators — may not lawfully impose security fees based on their own subjective judgments about “the amount of hostility likely to be created by the speech based on its content.” Such fees amount to a tax on speech an administrator subjectively dislikes, or subjectively believes is likely to cause disruption or violence.
“Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob,” the Forsyth Court wrote, noting that “[t]hose wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers, for example, may have to pay more for their permit.”
Over the years, FIRE has tracked far too many instances of campuses burdening controversial speech with hefty security fees. Some have resulted in First Amendment lawsuits, resulting in costly settlements for the institutions involved. FIRE has also often seen institutions use security concerns — without legitimate evidence — to silence expression on campus.
Violence must never be a response to speech
America must be an open society where we feel safe to share our ideas in the public square, not just from behind bulletproof glass and bulletproof vests.
Imposing exorbitant security fees due to the controversial nature of an event effectuates a heckler’s veto, as it allows an audience’s reaction to dictate the price a student group must pay to hold an event. This means that a student group could be priced out of holding a controversial event if the audience reaction is anticipated to be too disruptive. Just as there is undeniable risk in hosting controversial speakers, there is infinite risk in surrendering the marketplace of ideas to the heckler’s veto.
So what should colleges do in the face of this challenge?
First, they need to adopt and publish viewpoint- and content-neutral regulations on events. As we wrote in a 2022 letter to Pennsylvania State University, “Any administrative imposition of security fees on a student group must be guided by narrowly drawn, viewpoint- and content-neutral, reasonable, definite, and clearly communicated standards in order to comply with [the university’s]…obligations under the First Amendment.” FIRE’s Model Speech Policies for College Campuses include a security fee policy that other colleges can emulate to set themselves up for success.
When universities silence controversy they silence opportunity — the opportunity to test ideas, sharpen arguments, and confront uncomfortable topics.
Second, colleges must apply those regulations to make decisions about security measures on the basis of verified, specific safety concerns, rather than speculative assumptions on the basis of the speaker’s message or experiences at past events. And every effort should be made to ensure events that do present concerns are able to continue. Such strategies as increasing security, using metal detectors, and moving events online should be applied before cancellation.
Third, colleges need to train staff to apply these standards properly to meet their dual obligations to ensure safety of attendees and the speaker during the event, and to uphold the ability of attendees to hear the speaker’s message. FIRE’s First Amendment Lessons for College Administrators can be a useful starting point for this work.
Student acceptance of violence in response to speech hits a record high
In 2020, just 1 in 5 students said it was acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker. Now it’s 1 in 3 — a nearly 80% jump in five years.
At the same time, colleges should educate students on freedom of speech: both its limits and its importance in our democracy. FIRE encourages colleges to begin this education on day one at orientation, guided by our Free Speech at Freshman Orientation programming. These lessons should provide students with better options for responding to disfavored speech than shoutdowns or violence. They should also reinforce why we’ve chosen in America to meet speech with which we disagree with more speech.
When universities silence controversy they silence opportunity — the opportunity to test ideas, sharpen arguments, and confront uncomfortable topics. They must meet this challenging moment not with censorship but with empowerment of free expression.
