FEATURED
Trolling people online could draw punishment
The University of Pennsylvania is looking for feedback on its proposed “open expression” guidelines – and a national free speech group says some changes are needed to protect free speech.
The proposed changes follow acrimonious protests on campus the past several years concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Throughout the rest of this semester and the summer, UPenn is asking community members to provide input on the new “Guidelines on Open Expression.” Final guidelines will be ready by the fall semester, according to the university’s announcement.
Some of the rules, including those surrounding online harassment, need to be revised according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
“Online harassment or the doxing of students, faculty or staff is counter to UPenn’s commitment to creating an inclusive community that upholds the University’s fundamental values,” the rule reads.
Harassing activity, according to Penn’s Almanac, can range anywhere from doxxing someone by posting their private information on social media, to “trolling” or provoking someone online.
This “vague language” around online harassment and cyberbullying needs revision, according to Laura Beltz, director of policy reform for FIRE.
In an email to The College Fix, Beltz said the policy might “chill online speech that may be found subjectively offensive or annoying,” which is protected under First Amendment standards. Students are encouraged under the proposal to report social media comments that offend them.
She has other major concerns which need addressing.
“Most concerningly,” Beltz said, the guidelines provide “no guaranteed opportunity to protest spontaneously — something that is critical to responding to recent or still unfolding events.”
In spite of these issues, Beltz did not write the policy off as a failure — there are “a few improvements,” in this proposal when compared to temporary rules released in 2024, the free speech expert told The Fix.
“For example, they no longer state that students can be punished for merely advocating violence, which is a step forward, since such speech is protected under First Amendment standards when it doesn’t rise to the level of unlawful incitement to violence,” Beltz said.
She provided a few suggestions that could remedy the proposal’s faults.
“Instead of creating a chilling effect on speech with vague, overbroad language,” Beltz said, “UPenn should be supporting students in responding to offensive speech with their own counter-speech, and taking action only when speech does rise to the level of unprotected speech.”
In regards to UPenn’s new social media harassment policy, Beltz suggested the school should “make clear in its policies when speech crosses the line into unprotected conduct that will be subject to investigation and/or discipline” in order to avoid any potential chilling effect on online speech.
Beltz also said: “FIRE will be encouraging UPenn to make revisions to these and other concerning sections of the proposed revisions so students and faculty can express themselves spontaneously on campus without fear that the policy will be applied to restrict disfavored viewpoints.”
She also encouraged “the UPenn community to submit comments on the proposal” to make sure the concerns of all members of the community were being met.
The Fix reached out to both UPenn Media Relations and Faculty Senate Chair Kathleen Brown via email and phone call in the past two weeks.
The Fix asked about the inclusion of “trolling” in the guidelines as well as the regulation of off-campus speech. The Fix also asked about balancing harassment with free speech.
MORE: Lawmaker questions funding for Catholic university that blocked pro-Israel speaker
