FEATURED
But expert says law properly distinguishes between peaceful and disruptive protests
A new free speech law named after slain Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is “dehumanizing,” according to the Secular Student Alliance.
The bill, which will go into effect on July 1, seeks to protect free speech on campus and punish unruly disruptions of speakers. Republican Governor Bill Lee signed the law on May 5.
“What this law actually does is protect invited speakers – no matter how extreme or dehumanizing their views – while making it riskier for students to push back,” the Secular Student Alliance stated in a news release sent to The College Fix prior to the signing of the bill.
The group takes particular issue with provisions in the law that punish disruptive protests.
“Free speech doesn’t mean protecting powerful voices from criticism,” the group stated in its news release. “It means guaranteeing that criticism can happen – loudly, publicly, and without fear.”
The College Fix spoke to Kevin Bolling, the executive director for the Secular Student Alliance.
Bolling criticized the bill, saying that it only promotes and protects certain conservative and Christian viewpoints.
“The bill very much goes into supporting specific speech,” Bolling said.
“The intent is Christian, religious, privileged speech, conservative speech,” he said.
He did say that the no language in the law specifically supports a specific viewpoint.
“I wouldn’t say [the bill] specifically outright says that, but that is the speech they’re looking to protect,” Bolling said. “So we’ve also seen examples in Texas and Florida where conservative Christianity is privileged in certain things.”
The Charlie Kirk Act amends existing Tennessee law to require schools to adopt parts of the Chicago Statement and the Kalven Report, which together establish a standard of free speech protections for students and speakers, as well as of institutional neutrality.
The required additions include further protections for campus speakers.
“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe,” the required language reads.
It prohibits schools from disinviting speakers because of their viewpoint, even if the school expects or is experiencing disruptive protests against the speaker.
The new law goes on to prohibit protestors’ actions which may substantially disrupt the event, which includes “Staging walk-outs during an event or in the middle of an invited speaker’s remarks that result in considerable disruption or distraction or the need to pause the event.”
Bolling took issue with this language, arguing that it prohibits students from leaving events that they find disagreeable or offensive, and even if they cannot remain at the event for other reasons.
“Young people […] are walking out as a form of protest, as a form of speech, as a form of freedom of expression,” Bolling said. “If you went to an event and you just didn’t like what you were hearing, or had something else to do, you should be free to walk out.”
But a national free speech group said the law protects both the rights of protesters and of student groups.
The Fix spoke in a phone interview with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Michael Hurley, who argues that the new law strikes the proper balance.
Hurley said that it’s a common mistake that this law prohibits walkouts: “The amended language only prohibits walkouts if they are intentionally, materially, substantially disruptive to the event.”
The required commitment from the schools in the state protects speakers’ rights, as well as the financial burden of putting on costly events.
Walkouts that substantially harm an event’s attendance are prohibited with the new law, although it does not prevent students from leaving an event out of disagreement or other reasons.
