FEATURED
Key Takeaways
- Florida's new law allows universities to expel students who support groups labeled as domestic terrorists, raising concerns among free speech advocates due to its vague definitions.
- Critics argue that the bill could lead to self-censorship and a chilling effect on free expression, especially in political discourse and protests, as its definitions of terrorist support are ambiguous.
- Organizations like PEN America are monitoring the law's implementation, emphasizing that it poses a threat to First Amendment rights and open inquiry.
- While supporters claim the law targets conduct, not beliefs, critics highlight the need for neutral enforcement that aligns with constitutional principles.
A new law signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis allows universities to expel students based on support for groups labeled as domestic terrorists. However, critics are concerned that the bill’s “vague” definitions could suppress free speech.
Universities must expel students who engage in disruptive actions or discourse that supports or encourages “a terrorist organization’s extralegal violence,” under HB 1471. The bill also withholds school voucher funds from schools affiliated with designated foreign or domestic terrorist organizations.
PEN America’s Florida Director, William Johnson, told The College Fix that this bill “raises serious First Amendment concerns.”
“The bill’s broad and ambiguous framing risks sweeping in protected expression and lawful activity, particularly in the context of protests, organizing, and the discussion of political ideas,” the free speech group leader said.
“When a law is written so that people cannot clearly understand what speech or conduct might expose them to severe penalties, it creates a chilling effect—people self-censor rather than risk legal consequences,” he said.
Expanding the scope of “domestic terrorism” without clear, narrow definitions risks overbroad or uneven enforcement, which undermines core First Amendment protections, he said.
Further, PEN America is closely monitoring the law and raising awareness about its potential impact, he said.
“We are also working with partners and advocates to ensure that any implementation of the law is scrutinized and that constitutional protections remain front and center in public discussion,” Johnson said.
He added that this bill is a symptom of a bigger issue in Florida.
“More broadly, this law fits into a wider pattern we are seeing in Florida, where vague or expansive policies—whether in education, libraries, or public discourse—create uncertainty that leads to self-censorship. That cumulative effect is deeply concerning for anyone who cares about open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas,” he said.
Similarly, Michael Hurley, government affairs counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The Fix that the law will “cast an impermissible chilling effect on campus discourse at Florida’s colleges and universities.”
He said “mere advocacy in support of terrorist organizations remains protected by the First Amendment.”
The free speech group leader referred to the U.S. Supreme Court case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project to support his argument.
The Court “upheld a federal prohibition on providing ‘material support’ to designated foreign terrorist organizations — but only because Congress carefully avoided criminalizing independent advocacy in support of or on behalf of foreign terrorist organizations.”
“That statute targets coordinated support, such as training, expert advice, service, or personnel provided under the direction or control of a designated organization,” Hurley told The Fix.
The Court has protected the right of individuals to speak freely in favor of such groups, “advocate for their political goals, or seek their removal from the designation list.”
“Although the final version of the bill was amended to define ‘promotes’ by referencing other legal concepts, such as the ‘true threat’ doctrine, this didn’t cure the measure’s constitutional defects,” he told The Fix.
Ultimately, Hurley noted that the state must be neutral if it sets out to punish the speech of its citizens.
“If the state is going to punish speech, it must do so according to constitutional principles and with neutrality, not by picking and choosing which threats it finds most objectionable,” he said.
The College Fix attempted to reach the state governor’s office and the bill’s sponsors for comment via email, but did not receive a reply.
However, during a committee hearing, Rep. Hillary Cassel said the bill “targets conduct, not belief, and protects free speech, religious liberty, and due process,” according to News From The States.
Rep. Tiffany Esposito said she strongly supports the bill due to its prohibition on Sharia Law.
“Under Sharia Law, as a woman, I would not sit here today,” she said. “I would not be educated. I would not be employed, and I would lose so much of my freedom.”
