updated Mon. July 15, 2024
-
Washington Examiner
March 2, 2018
Citing Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, Becker reinforces the fact that the Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional to levy a security fee on speaking. “Individuals wishing to silence speech with which they disagree merely have to threaten to protest,” Becker stated in the demand letter. “This is an ...
Dailyuw
February 12, 2018
One particular case the letter cites is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, which holds that imposing a fee for speaking based on the security costs is unconstitutional. The case ruling states: “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might ...
Reason
February 12, 2018
First, the Security Fee Policy fails to provide "narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards," and thereby gives administrators broad discretion to determine how much to charge student organizations for enhanced security, or whether to charge at all. See Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992).
Campus Safety Magazine
January 15, 2018
This has been a controversial practice that some consider a form of unconstitutional censorship, citing the 1992 Supreme Court decision Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement. New Mexico State University Police Chief and CS contributing writer Stephen Lopez recommends institutions consult with legal ...
The News Record
January 9, 2018
The court filing cites Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), a Supreme Court case in which justices held that it is unconstitutionally discriminatory for a speaker to be required to pay for security due to the controversial nature of their speech or due to the community's hostile reaction to ...
Newsweek
November 22, 2017
On Monday, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky delivered two lectures at Cornell on "Free Speech on Campus." I'm not going to try to recap everything Dean Chemerinsky said. Instead, I want to focus on what he described as a gray area: the scope of the obligation of government--including ...
The College Fix
October 27, 2017
“In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, the Supreme Court held that a county ordinance allowing a government official unbridled discretion to establish a fee for speaking based on the estimated costs of security was unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” states the law firm's letter to UCLA ...
ThinkProgress
October 20, 2017
The reason public universities are burdened with shouldering the costs for Spencer's security comes from the 1992 Supreme Court case Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, known in First Amendment doctrine as the “heckler's veto.” In that case, Justice Harry Blackmun ruled that free speech “cannot be ...
Campus Safety Magazine
August 17, 2017
In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (505 US 123, 1992) makes it clear that costs for security or law enforcement can only be imposed in a content-neutral manner. This means that agencies may not charge higher fees (e.g., for permits or staffing) for one group ...
