“Free expression”: experts examine the legality of a controversial display | Characteristics



Wayne State officials have decided not to prosecute the LaRouche organization following recent controversial incidents on campus.

The LaRouche organization appeared on campus on September 15 and 29, with a display that many considered anti-Semitic.

There is no legal path WSU can pursue against the LaRouche organization, said WSU general counsel Louis Lessem.

“What they did was very nasty stuff, but probably not something that would be prohibited,” Lessem said. “It wasn’t on our property. We have no control over what people do on properties other than ours.

The LaRouche organization set up its display near the corner of Merrick Street and Anthony Wayne Drive, outside Yousif B. Ghafari Hall, on September 15 and 29.

A difference of a few feet marks an invisible barrier between WSU and City of Detroit property, WSU Police Chief Anthony Holt said. The place where the organization set up in this area has affected the legality of their presence.

The sidewalk on the corner is considered Detroit property, while Merrick Street is considered WSU property, Holt said.

Holt said the display was installed on WSU property on September 15, when WSUPD agents informed the LaRouche organization that they were only legally permitted on City of Detroit property. The organization moved and then left soon after.

On September 29, the LaRouche organization set up its exhibit on the Detroit property, following orders from the WSUPD, Holt said.

Jenna Friedman, a member of the Jewish Student Organization, saw the exhibit on September 29 at 3 p.m., she said. Although she said her conversation with representatives of the LaRouche organization had not been fruitful, she wanted the university to be more proactive on this issue.

“Even though I was offended, I was ready to have a conversation with them. I was curious about their rationale, but they (the LaRouche organization) weren’t open to that kind of dialogue, ”Friedman said. “I think condemning anti-Semitism is the bare minimum of what we should be doing. He (Dean of Students David Strauss’ declaration) was not as specific or straightforward as I would have liked.

Associate Professor of Journalism Fred Vultee said he urged the WSU and the public to be careful when considering the type of response they would like to see from the WSU.

“My take on what Wayne should do is really tangential. Having said that, the important thing to consider is the discrimination of points of view, ”said Vultee. “Are you going to choose which word to protect if you agree with her?” We have to be careful, because if we leave this as a political decision it is just as likely to go against your point of view as it is in favor of it. “

Vultee said legal protections for political speech have increased over time.

“As it evolves, the type of speech that enjoys the most protection is political speech, as the aim is to encourage people to speak out on matters of politics and autonomy.” , Vultee said. “From this freedom of expression can arise conflicts but also good ideas.”

Friedman said legal guidelines should differentiate between free speech and hate speech.

“I support freedom of expression and this is important. It happened near campus and WSU’s mission is to protect its students physically and emotionally from harm, ”Friedman said. “I think something can fall under freedom of speech, but it can still be hate speech. Just because you have the right to do it doesn’t mean you should.

Vultee and Lessem said they believe the best solution to this problem is for students to use their free speech to counter postings. Following the previous incident, Strauss also said he encouraged such a response.

“But the historic American remedy for this is counter-narrative,” Vultee said. “The whole concept of a public square applies in most scenarios like this. “

The concept of the public square dates back to Marsh V. Alabama in 1946, according to The Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. The Supreme Court ruled that people distributing religious literature on public sidewalks are protected by the First Amendment.

Lessem said he believed the LaRouche organization had acted inappropriately, but WSU was under no obligation to intervene.

“The answer is not ‘who has the bigger stick?’ The law should apply to everyone, so if they want to make a fool of themselves about public property, then the rules governing public property govern them, ”Lessem said. “To punish them would be to feed their hands. “

Irving Mejia-Hilario is the editor of The South End. He can be contacted at managementeditortse@gmail.com.

Cover photo of a September 29 LaRouche exhibit at WSU by Jenna Prestininzi, editor-in-chief of The South End. Prestininzi can be contacted at editorinchieftse@gmail.com.


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.