A school district in Wisconsin wants its students and employees to say what it wants – and only what it wants.
And it’s apparently going to try to force that by imposing a “hate” speech code that is in violation of the First Amendment, according to a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Express.
The organization reports that it is the Baraboo School District that has a draft policy stating, “Hate speech is not protected speech” and outlines plans for the district to “not tolerate any form of hate speech.”
Those statements and opinions, the school insists, will be banished “both on and off school grounds,” FIRE reported.
“But here’s the problem: ‘Hate speech’ has no legal meaning in the United States, and the term is often used to describe speech that is constitutionally protected,” FIRE reported. “The policy does provide its own definition of ‘hate speech,’ namely ‘any form of communication that attacks, threatens, degrades, or insults a person or group based on their race, color, national origin, ancestry, creed, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender variance, or any other group.'”
But FIRE, in a letter to the district, explains that “vague and subjective definition violates the First Amendment.”
Actually, many analysts have said the First Amendment was created in order to protect offensive speech, because inoffensive comments – those that everyone would support – would need no special protection.
FIRE explains, “The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.”
And it cited the U.S. Supreme Court, which “recently reaffirmed that ‘America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy.’ That means they have an interest in protecting students’ freedom to express themselves, and that ‘protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection.'”
Students’ speech rights inside school walls actually are abridged somewhat, in order to “maintain order and discipline.”
“But school officials don’t have carte blanche to ban whatever speech they personally think is offensive or inappropriate. Rather, they can restrict student speech only in limited circumstances, such as when it would substantially disrupt the learning environment. … Schools cannot suppress speech out of ‘mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.'”
For example, FIRE challenges, “Is it ‘hate speech’ for a student to argue that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are too old to be president because it ‘attacks’ or ‘degrades’ a person based on their age?”
“Absent evidence of substantial disruption, the First Amendment protects students’ expression of controversial opinions…”
Further, the organization notes, when “students leave school grounds, they’re under the authority of their parents, not government employees.”
