ATLANTA (Legal Newsline) – A free speech group gained some success in its challenge of a University of Central Florida policy alleged to be way too woke.
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found UCF’s anti-harassment policy likely violates the First Amendment because it is overbroad and regulates constitutionally protected expression.
The ruling allows a Florida federal judge to consider whether it actually violates the First Amendment. He had ruled Speech First didn’t have standing to challenge it, but the Eleventh Circuit decision ruled that it does.
It’s all part of computer rules implemented by UCF that became the subject of Speech First’s court challenge. In July, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against part of the rule that prohibits harassing or hateful messages.
“UCF’s Computer Policy is plainly vague and overbroad,” Judge Gregory Presnell wrote then. “It simply prohibits ‘harassing or hate messages’ without defining the terms.”
Speech First represents students at UCF who wish to make known their feelings on abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, transgender individuals and illegal immigration.
The school feels these opinions would constitute discriminatory harassment, which it defines as “verbal, physical, electronic or other conduct based upon an individual’s race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, non-religion, age, genetic information, sex (including pregnancy and parental status, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation), marital status, physical or mental disability (including learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and past or present history of mental illness), political affiliations, veteran’s status (as protected under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistant Act), or membership in other protected classes set forth in state or federal law that interferes with that individual’s educational or employment opportunities, participation in a university program or activity, or receipt of legitimately-requested services meeting the description of either Hostile Environment Harassment or Quid Pro Quo Harassment…”
The policy also hopes to prevent “bias-related incidents” that are directed towards individuals or groups based on “identity characteristics or background.”
The school formed a response team called the Just Knights to investigate alleged violations.
“The discriminatory-harassment policy objectively chills speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs,” the Eleventh Circuit ruled.