When Florida Officials Tried to Silence Our Pro-Palestinian Student Group, We Sued
While studying abroad a couple of years ago, I heard first-hand accounts from Jordanian-Palestinian friends about the displacement their families, and families like theirs, experienced during the 1948 Nakba (Arabic for 鈥渃atastrophe鈥�). Moved by the painful memories they shared, I started researching student organizations advocating for Palestinian rights, and came across the Instagram of the University of Florida (UF) chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). When I enrolled at UF a few months later, I immediately joined.
As a member of UF SJP, it was devastating when top Florida officials ordered public universities to deactivate all SJP chapters in the state, including ours. I remember being in shock when I read the order. Officials justified deactivating our chapter not because of anything our group had said or done鈥攂ut because of our affiliation with the national chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a separate group. According to the order, certain views expressed in an advocacy toolkit the National SJP issued on October 7 violated Florida鈥檚 鈥渕aterial support of terrorism鈥� law. But my student group was not even involved with the creation of that toolkit, which itself is protected by the First Amendment.
On October 8, our SJP chapter issued its own statement, saying that we 鈥渕ourned the loss of innocent Palestinian and Israeli life,鈥� and made clear that 鈥渢he killing of any life is always undignified and heartbreaking.鈥� Later, we issued another statement urging the University of Florida to condemn all violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Palestinian erasure, and anti-Palestinian sentiment.
Our chapter has students from a variety of religious, racial, and cultural backgrounds, including members who are Jewish, Palestinian, and Palestinian-American, who believe that speaking up for Palestine is speaking up for humanity. Reading the deactivation order, we felt like we had no choice but to sue to protect our First Amendment right to free speech and free assocation. We know of multiple current and potential members of UF SJP who feared being punished and investigated. Our advocacy has suffered from having our state and university officials levy false accusations of 鈥渢errorism鈥� against us. For months, we feared that at any moment the University could have denied us access to critical school funds, resources, and facilities that are fundamental to the survival and operation of our organization.
The Importance of Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Palestinian Students in Florida
Explore the critical case that could shape the future of public students鈥� right to free speech and free association on campus.
Source: 老澳门开奖结果
Near the end of January, the 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida, and Palestine Legal went to court to defend our rights and, on January 31, a federal judge dismissed our lawsuit. The court found that after issuing the order, Florida officials do not intend to deactivate our chapter. Although the court did not rule on our First Amendment claims, it鈥檚 a relief to know that the court concluded our chapter does not currently face deactivation.
As the judge acknowledged during the hearing on our case: 鈥淲ords have consequences.鈥� For months we have lived with fear and anxiety as a result of the order. I still carry a deep worry for my safety, for my loved ones鈥� safety, and the safety of any student who chooses to get involved in our SJP chapter. We hope that state officials learned their lesson when they walked back the deactivation order, and that the State University System Chancellor will now take his order down from his website.
I remember learning about my constitutional rights in seventh grade civics class, including how we were all entitled to free speech. The juxtaposition of what I grew up thinking college kids in the U.S. were allowed to do and say and what we went through last semester is really stark. I can鈥檛 overstate how deeply disappointing it was to see our state鈥檚 highest officials attempt to censor us. Their actions were contrary to everything I understood about how our democracy is supposed to work.
I can鈥檛 overstate how deeply disappointing it was to see our state鈥檚 highest officials attempt to censor us. Their actions were contrary to everything I understood about how our democracy is supposed to work.
At a time when the number of Palestinians killed or injured in Gaza is rising exponentially each day, standing up for our right to speak out on the issue felt like a no-brainer. While this experience hasn鈥檛 been easy, we鈥檙e proud to have fought for our rights in court. We hope our case sets a precedent that students cannot be silenced.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.