U. South Florida Student Govt. Won’t Allow Student Leadership Candidates to Speak to School Newspaper
“may have potentially violated the free speech rights of new student candidates”
What happens if these students ignore the student government? Wouldn’t you?
Campus Reform reports:
USF student government forbids student leadership candidates from talking to school paper, potentially violating 1st Amendment
Student government officials at the University of South Florida (USF) recently made a decision that may have potentially violated the free speech rights of new student candidates.
Candidates running for Student Government at USF, located in Tampa, were recently told not to speak to the school newspaper, The Oracle, while on campaign, according to a Feb. 25 article from the outlet.
USF’s Elections Rules Commission (ERC) told candidates they had to refuse any campaign-related interviews with The Oracle, the student paper reported.Bobby Block, executive director for the First Amendment Foundation (FAF), said that shutting down interviews with The Oracle would mean that the ERC would “be in violation of the law and the First Amendment.”
”You cannot preempt speech,” Block stated. “That’s the beginning, middle and end of it.”
FAF is a Florida-based non-profit focused on ensuring “that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Florida’s changing times.”
The ERC allegedly made the decision to ban interviews with the student paper due to a potential violation of USF Student Government Statute 706.5.3.1, The Oracle wrote.
Statute 706.5.3.1 prohibits candidates from “using [Activity and Service] funded materials to further their campaign (except for anything printed via the free printing locations and Bulls Media services),” with “Activity and Service” referring to certain funds that students provide, as The Oracle noted.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“free press” = “dark money”!
What first amendment violation?
1. Since when is the student government a government entity bound by the first amendment?
2. As the article notes, the student government statute specifically forbids candidates from using A&S funded materials to further their campaign. That’s analogous to a candidate for real office using taxpayer money for his campaign, and the students who wrote this statute thought that was wrong.
Well, guess what funds the Oracle. A candidate using an Oracle interview to campaign from the newspaper’s pages is violating that rule. Or at least so the Elections Rules Commission ruled, and it seems like a reasonable interpretation.
It is not a “reasonable interpretation”. Sitting for an interview out of which an article appears in the student paper authored by the reporter rather than the candidate is not using school funds to campaign. That is the most unreasonable interpretation one could imagine, Milhouse. You are smarter than that.
Let’s specify it could be a campaign expenditure if the paper were biased toward one candidate. The paper endorsing a candidate might be a prohibited expenditure of funds, and allowing a stealth endorsement via article would have the same problem.
But that would be on the paper, really. Unless the candidate collaborated with the paper.
I can see the interpretation. But the prior restraint bit is where the problem occurs.
And, yes, Milhouse, a student government (which decides things like where student moneys go) at a government educational facility ARE bound by the First Amendment. (Hence, all those cases about funding religious groups and such because of decisions the student gov’t made. You know, the ones the student gov’ts lost because they were in violation of the Constitution?)
“Let’s specify it could be a campaign expenditure if the paper were biased toward one candidate. ”
Newspapers, news shows, news blogs have biased articles and reports about election issues and candidates all the time. This is neither a First Amendment violation of the “other sides” candidate, nor an in-kind campaign contribution.
There is just no issue here.
OK, let’s back this up a minute…
You wrote:
Sitting for an interview out of which an article appears in the student paper authored by the reporter rather than the candidate is not using school funds to campaign.
And I said it could be considered an issue (based on the rule) if the paper used it to actually endorse (or stealth endorse, more likely) a candidate. If they were actually interviewing all the candidates and putting that info in their student paper, then it shouldn’t be.
Again, the issue here is the rule the student government passed. They implemented a local form of campaign finance regulation. How newspapers in the regular world handle things is not the issue here. How the rules are in this instance are what’s important.
THEN I mentioned “prior restraint.” Because of what was coming next.
THEN I responded to Milhouse in the same comment, telling him that it certainly could be a First Amendment issue because the paper is entangled with said gov’t by virtue of the institution being government funded and run. And this is where it becomes a potential problem, and “prior restraint” becomes the issue. It’s certainly where plenty of prior First Amendment jurisprudence has occurred, with funding of clubs and such at state colleges has been litigated.
I think it’s a reasonable interpretation by Milhouse, but still likely to be prohibited under 1A. “I paid for this microphone” (Reagan) has limits. By funding a student newspaper, the university funded speech, and as such, it’s reasonable that 1A could force openness in some ways, especially because it’s a government funded university, in fact a “public” university.
But it might go the other way. By blocking all discussions from the student newspaper, the university makes sure it stays out of the political arena with its funded student activity. That is fair to all. They could use pamphlets, like the olden days of when the Constitution was written.
Milhouse:
It’s a government-run educational institution. I highly doubt a reasonable Florida court would see eye to eye with your interpretation, correct as it MIGHT be on technicality. We’re talking about blabby students with a campus newspaper and a dictatorial student government that uses university-funded space and is sanctioned by the university. Ultimately, the affected students could argue that the university itself, passively or otherwise is sanctioning this prohibition of their first amendment freedom of speech. You know how the lens of publicity works in cases like this.