University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds urged
motorists in this tweet to drive over protesters blocking a Charlotte-area highway in North
Carolina. “Run
them down,” said Reynolds, who also produces the Instapundit website
and writes for USA Today.
In my research article, "#Academic Freedom: Twitter
and First Amendment Rights for Professors,” Notre Dame Law Review, I concluded: “Is every tweet from a
professor protected as a form of academic freedom by the First Amendment? In
the wake of Waters and Garcetti, colleges and universities have
won most First Amendment cases involving disruptive faculty speech. This strong trend implies that tweets that
disrupt a school’s mission or operations are not protected by the First
Amendment.” My article is here: Click here to see my article (it's very short, just like tweets).
Prof. Reynolds—similar to Prof. Salaita—would argue that his
speech was political and metaphorical. UT, like UIUC, would argue that these tweets “disrupt”
its mission to provide a safe and tolerant community. The disruption concept appears in two Supreme Court cases on free speech for public employees.
A federal district court
did not accept UIUC’s argument. I predicted the opposite outcome, and I was
wrong, because my research showed: “Eighteen court opinions ruled in favor of
schools in the course of discussing disruptive faculty speech. In losing these cases, faculty invoked the
First Amendment to justify discussions of personal details about their sex
life, inappropriate advances, wanton
vulgarity, and required reading about
their sexual arousal. Other losing cases involved faculty whose
speech was confrontational, degrading, or conducive to an atmosphere of tension
(emphasis added to indicate how I classify the Salaita/Reynolds Twitter rants).”
I have a proven track record for wrong predictions—now, it’s
your turn! (Thanks to Alan for the lead
on this.)
No comments:
Post a Comment