Each reading contains a pro and a con argument

Discuss who made the better argument, and why. Should at least mention something about who you don't like and why as well.

Argument 1:

Greg Lukianoff against Free Speech Zones

FIRE unites leaders in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, freedom of religion, academic freedom, due process andhi the case of West Virginia's University's "Free Speech Zones" policyfreedom of speech and expression on America's college campuses. Our web page, www.thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and activities.

We join with the West Virginia University Free Speech Consortium in opposing WVO's "Free Speech Zone" pol- icy, which limits free speech to only a tiny portion of the campus. This perversion of constitutional law should be anathema to any institution committed to intellectual rigor, robust debate, and a free and vibrant community. We call on you to tear down the barriers to speech and declare all of WVU a "Free Speech Zone."

The irony of this policy is that the societal function of the university, in any free society, is to serve as the ultimate "Free Speech Zone." A university serious about the search for truth should be seeking at all times to expand open discourse, to foster intellectual inquiry, and to engage and challenge the way people think. By limiting free speech to a tiny fraction of the campus, you send the message that speech is to be feared, regulated, and monitored at all times. This message is utterly incompatible with a free society and stands in stark opposition to the ideals of higher education. You should remember, at all times, our Supreme Court's timeless expression of the important role of our universities in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234,250 (1957):

The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. . . . Schol- arship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. [Emphasis added].

We assure you that there is nothing "reasonable" about transforming ninety-nine percent of your University's propertyindeed, public propertyinto "Censorship Zones." The case law never intended to transform public institutions to places where Constitutional protections are the exception rather than the rule. A generalized concern about safety and order is neither specific nor substantial enough to justify this rule. . . .

For all the controversy surrounding the Free Speech Zones, it appears highly unlikely that it is a legitimate or enforceable rule at all, even by WVU's own standards, considering this policy does nothing less than abrogate the protections of the Bill of Rights. As the constitutions of both the United States and West Virginia require substantial due process before denying such rights, and as WVU is obligated to make rules touching upon speech enforceable, FIRE requests that WVU immediately produce evidence of the policy's "legitimacy." Failure to do so is tantamount to declaring the death of free speech, and the demise of your university as a place where the fullest free speech protections are recognized.

We are categorically committed to using all of our media and legal resources to support the West Virginia University Free Speech Consortium and to see this process to a just and moral conclusion. Please spare West Virginia University the embarrassment of fighting against the Bill of Rights by which it is legally and morally

bound. We urge WVU to show the courage necessary to admit its error, undo this unjust policy, and to tell the world that free speech at WVU is to be celebrated, honored, and broadened, not feared, restrained, and hidden.

Argument 2:

Robert Scott defending Free Speech Zones

Violent demonstrations illustrate need to maintain public order.

The use of "free speech zones" or "protest zones" is not new and does not present a significant threat to free- speech rights.

Protest zones have been used at political conventions and other major events, such as last year's Winter Olympics. By creating a protest zone, governments can ensure that those who wish to express their views have a place to do so while minimizing the disruptions protests may bring.

Given the violence and vandalism accompanying recent protests, there is a real, immediate threat of disorder justifying a reasonable governmental response. Most of downtown San Francisco was shut down for two days in March by demonstrators who blocked traffic, damaged businesses and held an organized "vomit-in" around the federal building. Across the bay in Oakland, protesters attempted to disrupt access to ships transporting munitions.

Such incidents remind us that the First Amendment is not a license to do and say anything, anywhere, at any time. The Constitution does not protect protesters who break windows, obstruct traffic, disrupt military supply lines or threaten the safety of other citizens.

It has long been recognized that governments can impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. Obviously, the Secret Service should not be forced to allow protesters unlimited access to the president. College administrators should be able to make certain that protesters do not prevent other students from pursuing their studies.

Protest zones can be reasonable restrictions that allow free-speech rights to be expressed while decreasing safety concerns and preventing undue disruption.

Our democracy is based first and foremost on the rule of law. Reasonable protest zones are actually consistent with the basic idea that civil liberties may only be guaranteed and protected by an organized society maintaining public order.

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt, "Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." The lawlessness, violence and vandalism seen at recent protests are the hallmarks of anarchy, not liberty. Requiring those expressing dissent to obey the law while doing so does not constitute repression.