Violation Of Speech In College Essay

An issue which is ongoing involves First Amendment rights to free speech at the University of California Berkeley. Berkeley, on the founders of the free speech movement in the 1960s, has been a centerfield for individuals using their right to speech on a public college campus (Chicago Tribune, 2017). Recently though, Berkeley has been the center for debate for the possibility of restricting student speech beyond what the Constitution may allow.

The university canceled a speech that was supposed to be given by an outspoken conservative, Ann Coulter on April 27, 2017. The administrations excuse for the cancellation was that the speech may jeopardize safety on the campus, calling for a “heckler's veto” – which administrations use to silence speech deemed to elicit violence from a crowd. Later it was announced after much dismay from the students, especially from the university’s College Republicans, who proclaimed a violation of free speech, the

school’s administration changed their position and moved Ms. Coulter’s speech to May 2 of 2017 (Chicago Tribune, 2017) (The New York Times, 2017).
Looking at this issue, there are some guidelines that can be used from previous Supreme Court cases that may be used to theoretically go over the Berkeley situation, and their use of the “heckler’s veto”. In the Supreme Court case Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), where in the state of Georgia, a local government could incorporate certain fees for events where it was thought that police protection might be needed. In a five-to-four decision, the Court ruled against the fees incited on events deemed to need police protection. The majority written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, stressed that the ordinance contained no clear standard for the government’s administration to calculate fees. Overall, the majority declared that “…speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob” (505 U.S. 134). This statement shows a clear standard put for by the Supreme Court that may be used in opposition to the decision made by the Berkeley administration. However, as with most Supreme Court rulings, this standard is not without open interpretations.
A case that may be brought in favor of “heckler’s veto”, which cements the non-universality of use of Forsyth to strike down al “heckler’s vetoes” is Feiner v.

New York (1952), where the question asked by the Court was whether Feiner, a student at Syracuse University, was rightfully arrested due to a believed breach of the peace during a speech he gave where the police felt violence would ensue by the public. In a six-to-three opinion, the Court ruled in Feiner’s arrest and the police decision to arrest. The majority authored by Chief Justice Fred Vinson, cited that the police arrest of Feiner was the greatest interest to maintain the peace and avoid violence. The majority opinion also provides a standard for regulating speech, acknowledging that policy authority cannot be used to suppress views held as unpopular, however when a speaker moves away from arguments and towards inciting violence and rioting, the speaker is then without power to prevent the violence, then suppression of speech may take place (340 U.S.

315).
Thus, although it is a Supreme Court supported reasoning for the students to file suit against Berkeley, there is also Supreme Court supported reasoning for the administration to limit the speaker’s speech (340 U.S. 315). Personally, I feel as if the administration cannot limit the speaker yet, at least not until she is speaking. If during the speech the surroundings become hostile, then the school has reason to limit by use of the “heckler’s veto”.
Berkeley is an example of how the free speech on public university campuses is vague. Where the line is drawn in this situation is still undetermined. There is a right for the school to remove a speaker due to the possibility of violence from the crowed, however there is also standing by the students and the speaker that their free speech is being limited unconstitutionally due to adverse political ideology. The ruling has yet to be brought to any court, but the finding would go a long way in providing much desired standards for free speech of public college campuses.