Pro-Palestine Student Group in Florida Sues University System to Prevent Unconstitutional Deactivation
University of Florida鈥檚 Students for Justice in Palestine is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida, and Palestine Legal
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. 鈥� The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (UF SJP) filed a lawsuit today challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida鈥檚 order to state universities to deactivate the student group. Contrary to recent media reports, the deactivation order remains in place today.
In response, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to block the deactivation order from going into effect, arguing that Chancellor Ray Rodrigues and Gov. Ron DeSantis鈥� decision to effectively punish local student groups for their association with a national group is a clear violation of the constitutional rights to free speech and association.
鈥淎s students on a public college campus, we have every right to engage in human rights advocacy and promote public awareness and activism for a just and reasonable solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict鈥� said the University of Florida鈥檚 Students for Justice in Palestine. 鈥淲e know we have First Amendment rights in school and we鈥檙e bringing this lawsuit to make sure the government doesn鈥檛 silence us or others like us.鈥�
For decades, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. And the Supreme Court has long recognized that right. As the complaint explains, the deactivation order violates UF SJP鈥檚 First Amendment freedoms by censoring its speech and association, and also runs afoul of the First Amendment鈥檚 protection against viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and association.
鈥淔lorida鈥檚 deactivation order against a Palestinian rights student group for exercising its free speech and association rights is a clear First Amendment violation,鈥� said Hina Shamsi, director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淲e hope our client鈥檚 brave decision to challenge state officials鈥� attempt to restrict student speech sends the strong message that censorship in our schools is unconstitutional. There should be no question that independent political advocacy 鈥� no matter its viewpoint 鈥� is fully constitutionally protected.鈥�
The looming deactivation order has already cast a significant chill on UF SJP鈥檚 organizing and advocacy activities in support of Palestinian rights, at a time when the catastrophe in Israel and Palestine is a matter of vital public discourse. If enacted, the order will also deprive the group and its members of critical university resources and facilities necessary for the survival and operation of the organization on campus.
鈥淚f Florida officials think silencing pro-Palestinian students protects the Jewish community 鈥� or anyone, they鈥檙e wrong. This attack on free speech is dangerous: today it is pro-Palestinian students, tomorrow it could be any other group the governor鈥檚 dislikes,鈥� said Howard Simon, interim executive director of 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida. 鈥淲e recognize colleges are contending with how to manage increased threats and rising tensions on their campuses while keeping students safe 鈥� and we take the weight and complexity of these challenges seriously. But it is precisely in times of heightened crisis and fear that government officials, including Gov. DeSantis and University Chancellor Rodrigues, must remain steadfast in their obligations to respect free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus.鈥�
This lawsuit comes amid a troubling rise in calls for schools across the country to censor pro-Palestinian students and student groups for 鈥渕aterial support for terrorism,鈥� without any evidentiary basis, along with other extreme and discriminatory proposals to cancel visas and deport international students who protest in support of Palestine.
鈥淭hroughout history, students have been central actors in ending segregation, war, and apartheid 鈥� and Students for Justice in Palestine sits squarely in that tradition. It is precisely because these principled students pose a challenge to the status quo that they are being targeted with McCarthyist censorship, but the First Amendment simply does not allow for it,鈥� said Dima Khalidi, founder and director of Palestine Legal. 鈥淎s the humanitarian crisis in Gaza unfolds, we can't let elected officials and university leaders stigmatize groups speaking out for Palestinian human rights. The voices of SJP chapters are more important than ever."
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
Free Speech
+2 Issues
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.