Are free speech zones constitutional?

Question

Okay, in this THEORETICAL case, Timothy Allen is the president of the Racial Nationalist Party of America at the University of Massachusetts. UMASS has a "speech code" policy that limits the meetings and distribution of printed materials of anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and white supremecy groups to "free speech zones" on campus. UMASS RNPA planned to post an issue of the "White Voice", their newsletter. This issue contained inflammatory statements about the Jewish religion, made allegatiosn of a connection to the 9-11 attacks, and included a digitally produced image of Jewish student Jason Weinberger in Palestinian garb. On a tip from a student clerk at Kinko's, the university leared of the plans and when they found a stack of the newsletters in the lounge of Allen's dorm (which was outside of the free speech zone), they expelled Allen.

For my simulation case, I need to argue why the free speech policy is a violation of Allen's First Amendment rights. So far, the reasons that I have are:

That Allen did not utter "fighting words" (which was decided in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case) and that the speech code policy is unconstitutional because it is content-based. What is one more reason why the UMASS free speech zone is unconstitutional?

Answer 1

First, I believe that the entire United States, from one end to the other, is and should be a Free Speech Zone.

But in the case in question, all of this speech is taking place on a college campus. The First Amendment says that you cannot abridge a person's freedom to speak his mind. However, laws enacted since then and upheld by the Supreme Court have limited Free Speech somewhat. For example, it's illegal to tell lies about someone in order to cause them harm. (Libel.) It's illegal to use speech to incite a riot. It's illegal for me to exercise my right to Free Speech by standing outside your dorm room and reading the Constitution in a loud voice at 3:00am. (Disturbing the Peace.)

Now, it seems obvious that the UMass campus DID give Mr. Allen freedom of speech, as long as he exercised it appropriately (in the free speech zone).

If you have any chance of a win here, you are going to have to prove that the entire concept of the Free Speech Zone is unconstitutional, and that free speech must be accepted in ANY place as long as that speech does not violate one of the other laws mentioned above. Specifically, you have to prove that Supreme Court rulings have shown that it is legal to specify cases in which Free Speech does not have to be allowed (when it's disturbing the peace, when it's libelous, when it's used to incite violence), but those rulings do NOT give the right limit Free Speech to only given areas and times.

Now, during the 2004 presidential election, G Bush routinely would have Secret Service operatives go through the crowds he was about to pass through, look for people with anti-Bush signs and posters, and have them hauled away to 'free speech zones' far away from the President's route. Many cases were filed against the practice, usually based on a violation of Free Speech or for wrongful arrest (since the people were not allowed to leave the Free Speech Zone until after the President had passed.) You might get some ideas if you research cases against that practice.

Answer 2

According to the constitution, free speech holds no bounds in within the United States.

You should really analyze the practicality of its use though. It is currently being used in the UK as we speak.

To be perfectly honest, I would never stand for there being free speech "zones." It is very much an infringement on what the constitution of this country says.