FEATURED
Princeton University is considering a new policy that would prohibit unauthorized recording at off-campus events as well as school functions where permission has not explicitly been granted.
The policy, proposed at a recent Council of the Princeton University Community meeting, “prohibits the recording of meetings or events that might otherwise be construed as public or open when it has been explicitly stated that recording is not permitted.”
“The University also prohibits the transmission and/or distribution of any such recordings,” the proposed language states.
The prohibition also applies to “covert/secret recording” of “an educational, residential, research or workplace setting, including off-campus University sponsored activities.”
The university responded to criticism that this will limit press freedom and said the final policies are still being developed.
“The University is preparing guidance on the implementation of this policy, which will be made available well ahead of the Jan. 1, 2026 implementation of the policy,” the media relations office told The Fix via email.
“The University’s new recording policy will be implemented with an eye to maintaining existing media access and to supporting media accuracy, which may be helped by audio recordings that supplement note taking,” the office said. The media team also provided a copy of the proposal.
However, a national free speech group said there are clear problems with the proposal. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also said the school can, as proposed, protect actual invasions of privacy without this far-reaching policy.
The group said it “is concerned” the policy “is overly restrictive and undermines Princeton’s ‘bedrock commitment to free expression.’”
“At a university, virtually anything can be considered an ‘educational setting’ and even the common areas of a residence hall can be considered a ‘residential setting,’” Program Counsel Ross Marchand told The Fix via email. “In many of these settings, including the off-campus events mentioned in the policy, individuals do not in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
FIRE said the broad policy of using devices in a “responsible and respectful manner” could have unintended consequences.
“Anything from watching a video critical of Charlie Kirk to recording an anti-ICE protest can be considered disrespectful or irresponsible, depending on who is making the judgment,” Marchand told The Fix. “Free speech principles allow the watching of a wide variety of videos and filming in public places, unless the activity is otherwise illegal.”
That does not mean the school is powerless to protect the legitimate privacy interests of its members.
“Instead of this broad language, Princeton should simply explain that consent is required for filming in areas where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” Marchand said.
“Outside of a few exceptions consistent with legal precedent, community members should have the right to record freely,” he said.
Princeton students have raised concerns about the policy as well.
Restrictions on recording university meetings will harm those who cannot get into to hear for themselves, Isaac Barsoum wrote in the student newspaper.
“Student activists and others seeking change at the University have long relied on forums like CPUC as opportunities to question powerful figures on campus, including [President Christopher Eisgruber] and [Vice President of Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun],” Barsoum wrote. “But the CPUC is by nature closed to most students: for instance, there are fewer than 200 seats available in the audience, the meetings are not publicized except on the CPUC website, and the agendas are opaque.”
