Frequently Asked Questions

The First Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution and specifically protects individual rights against government infringement. It prevents the Government from restricting or prohibiting the right of individuals to engage in spoken and written speech, as well as symbolic speech and expressive activity. 

Its text reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes. 

Although the text of the First Amendment refers to “Congress,” the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the rights contained in the First Amendment, meaning that state and local government entities may not violate those rights. We are a public university and a state entity. Therefore, as a matter of law, the First Amendment applies to UW–Stevens Point and provides all members of the university community with the right to freedom of speech, although it may be restricted in some contexts. UW–Stevens Point’s actions and policies must abide by the requirements of the First Amendment, and it is a violation of the Constitution for the university’s actions or policies to conflict with them. 

The First Amendment provides extremely broad protection of individuals’ freedom of speech and expression. These protections even include speech and expression that some find offensive, hurtful or inconsistent with the university’s values. So, under the First Amendment, UW–Stevens Point, as a public university, can’t prohibit, limit, or punish speech or expression based on the viewpoint it conveys. 

UW–Stevens Point also can’t restrict speech based on content unless the university demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and only restricts speech as necessary to achieve that interest. If this sounds like a difficult standard to meet, it is. The U.S. Supreme Court intentionally set this bar high to limit the government’s ability to restrict speech because of what it stands for. 

Yes, the university can legally place some content-neutral limitations on speech, so long as they are reasonable. “Time, place, and manner restrictions” help to ensure health, safety, and welfare and to prevent disruption of university functions, including but not limited to classrooms, research labs, offices, museums, libraries, and pedestrian or vehicle traffic. 

• Time restrictions are those that restrict speech or expression to certain times of day. For example, a policy prohibiting speech near campus residence halls between the hours of 10PM and 7AM is a content-neutral time restriction. 

• Place restrictions limit the physical or digital spaces in which speech or expression can occur. For example, a policy prohibiting individuals from engaging in demonstrations or protests in classrooms is a content-neutral place restriction. 

• Manner restrictions limit the way – or the method by which – speech or expression can be conveyed. For example, a policy prohibiting the use of sound amplifying equipment by those speaking near academic buildings is a content-neutral manner restriction. 

The First Amendment permits more leeway for the government to limit speech in these content-neutral ways because the restrictions are independent of the government’s like or dislike of the message. For that reason, content-neutral restrictions are not as likely to be used to suppress speech the government dislikes. 

U.S. Supreme Court decisions about the First Amendment divide public physical spaces into three types of public forums with differing levels of protection for speech. These categories are: 

• Traditional Public Forum – A traditional public forum is a place where people traditionally express their views. This is a place that has a long-standing tradition of being used for, is historically associated with, or has been dedicated by government act to the free exercise of the right to speech and public debate and assembly. Traditional public forums include streets, parks, and sidewalks.  In these places, anyone can engage in expressive activity subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and as long as the conduct is lawful, and does not impede access to a facility or use of walkways, interfere with vehicle traffic, or disrupt the functioning of the institution. In these places, the government, or in our case, the university, may not prohibit speakers based on their viewpoints, even if their words potentially offend many students, faculty and staff or contradict the university’s values.  Note that classrooms are not a traditional public forum. 

• Designated Public Forum – Designated public forums are spaces that the government, by voluntary action, has opened for speech and debate. It’s open to any class or type of speech. The university may impose reasonable, content-neutral, restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech in designated public forums. Examples include the front lawn of Old Main, the fields in front of DeBot Dining, and dedicated campus rooms that can be reserved for speaker events. 

• Limited Public or Non-Public Forum – A limited or nonpublic forum is a place where individuals normally do not go to protest, assemble, and express their views. It’s government-controlled property set aside for a specific purpose in which it may limit the class of speakers and or subject matter allowed for discussion. The university can impose reasonable restrictions on expression in a non-public forum including preventing individuals from interrupting or occupying those spaces to express their views. Examples include a lab or administrative office, as well as classrooms. 

It depends. In those outdoor spaces considered traditional public forums, the answer is ‘yes’ (subject to time/place/manner restrictions).  Otherwise, the First Amendment does not require that UW–Stevens Point provide a platform to anyone who wants to speak. 

However, the university has opened other campus spaces as designated public forums for certain expressive activity. Different campus groups – from recognized student organizations to departments and schools to administrative units – may elect who they want to bring to speak on campus subject to the university’s policies regarding use of campus facilities and speaker invitations. 

UW–Stevens Point can (and does) have rules about the policies and processes that must be followed to invite a speaker to campus.  However, UW–Stevens Point cannot choose to prohibit or allow invited speakers based on their viewpoints or the content of their messages – as a matter of law, we must be content neutral in our policies about speech. When UW–Stevens Point provides a platform, the First Amendment prevents UW–Stevens Point from selectively preventing speech or expression because it conveys a controversial opinion or a viewpoint that some, or even most, on campus disagree with or find offensive. 

Likewise, UW–Stevens Point does not regulate the content of a speaker’s speech. Because we are and must be viewpoint neutral in our policies about speech, the fact that someone is speaking on campus in no way constitutes institutional endorsement or approval of their message. 

Yes.  There are several categories of speech that are not protected, but they are very limited and carefully defined. 

The categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment include: 

• Defamation – a written (libel) or spoken (slander) statement that injures a third party’s reputation 

• Obscenity and child pornography – obscenity is narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value – it’s acceptable for state and federal criminal laws to prohibit obscenity and child pornography 

• “True threats” – specific threats directed to person or group with intent to place them in fear of bodily harm or death 

• Incitement to immediately break the law 

• Fighting Words – intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation that is likely to provoke a violent reaction 

• Harassment as defined by law and university policy 

• Non-expressive conduct such as disruption of university functions, property damage, trespassing or blocking entrances to buildings 

• Intellectual property violations 

• Speech that may constitute a crime such as fraud and conspiracy 

In the First Amendment context, these words have very specific legal meanings. In a number of cases, the legal definition of these words may be stricter than the everyday meaning most people give these words. Whether speech or expression is unprotected requires case-by-case legal assessment. The important key point is to recognize that overwhelming majority of speech and expression is considered constitutionally protected and will not meet the standard of unprotected speech. 

For the most part, yes. A great deal of what is commonly termed ‘hate speech’ is in fact protected speech under the First Amendment. One way to understand this issue is to recognize that the First Amendment gives everyone both the right to offend and the right to be offended, without risking government intervention. This even includes the right to say things that are bigoted, hateful, loathsome, offensive, hurtful, or inconsistent with the university’s values so long as they do not cross the line into unprotected categories of speech such as defamation, direct threats of specific violence or harm, or become so pervasive and severe that they meet legal definitions of discrimination or harassment. 

Of course, the right to do something does not at all make it a good idea to do so. We as a university respect the First Amendment.  At the same time, we also very much hope that the members of our community will elect to treat each other with civility and respect. 

It is also important to note that the First Amendment also protects citizens’ rights to respond to any speech, including hate speech, with counter-speech. Offensive ideas can be counteracted responding with counterargument and with putting forward ideas that you value and cherish. This allows for the exchange of ideas and creates an opportunity to articulate your values and beliefs and to change perspectives and minds. 

Yes. Under federal and state law, UW–Stevens Point may prohibit words and actions that meet the legal definition of discrimination. That includes harassment on the basis of sex, race, national origin or shared ancestry, including discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived shared ancestry such as Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, or Arab. For a more detailed information about UW-Stevens Point’s obligations under Title VI, Title IX, and other civil rights laws, see the Universities of Wisconsin Office of Compliance and Integrity. In general, discriminatory harassment must be sufficiently “severe and pervasive”, which means that frequent and sustained conduct is more likely to constitute harassment than a singular instance of unwelcome speech.  

As explained by the United States Department of Education, discriminatory harassment “must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” 

While UW–Stevens Point is permitted to regulate discriminatory harassment, speech that does not rise to this level is protected by the First Amendment. Federal and State law only permit regulating discriminatory conduct in a manner that also protects the free speech rights of other students and faculty. 

Faculty/instructors maintain broad and important First Amendment protection when engaged in core academic functions such as teaching and scholarly activities. They also retain broad academic freedom, a distinct but related concept as described below. 

Administrators and other university employees do have some legal limits on their free speech rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment nor from employer discipline. All UW–Stevens Point employees retain First Amendment protection when speaking as private citizens, so long as they do not state, imply, or insinuate that they are speaking on behalf of UW–Stevens Point. 

Academic freedom and freedom of speech under the First Amendment are related but distinct legal concepts. The First Amendment protects individual rights of expression on any number of topics and in a variety of settings.  Academic freedom refers to the ability of instructors, students, and educational institutions to pursue knowledge in the context of teaching, learning, and research without unreasonable political or government interference. 

UW–Stevens Point instructors are entitled to academic freedom. This means that they have broad discretion to conduct research and publish results. It also means that instructors have broad discretion in the classroom when discussing the subject of the course they are teaching. 

Instructors are allowed to impose content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which students may engage in discussion in the classroom. Instructors may also limit the subject matter that may be discussed in a course. This means instructors are permitted to dictate the time and length of a classroom discussion, as well as its general subject matter.  They can also choose to lecture without permitting interruption, or to permit questions, or encourage discussion. 

During an instructor’s designated period for classroom discussion, students may express opinions on the subject matter of the class even when some, or many, disagree with those opinions. Instructors maintain discretion to assess the academic quality of student comments and to control the parameters of the discussion. In addition, students may not engage in speech or expressive conduct that disrupts the class or other University functions. 

UW–Stevens Point places content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech and expression, on its lands, in its buildings, and in its public spaces such as the Old Main front lawn or the fields in front of the DeBot Dining Center. These restrictions are outlined in UWS Ch. 18, as well as UW-Stevens Point Expressive Activity Guidelines. These spaces are limited public forums, as described above. 

No. UW–Stevens Point cannot prohibit, restrict, or punish speech in its public spaces based on the viewpoint it expresses. This means that UW–Stevens Point cannot remove or arrest speakers unless they have violated the law or campus policy. This is true even if the speaker is saying things that many find hurtful or offensive. 

Yes. Like many college campuses, UW–Stevens Point permits chalking as expressive activity on its sidewalks and streets. It would be constitutionally permissible to prohibit chalking altogether, as some universities do (as a “manner” restriction on speech).  But if we permit chalking, we cannot restrict chalking based on its viewpoint. UW–Stevens Point imposes content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on chalking that may be found in the UW-Stevens Point Expressive Activity Guidelines. (link) 

You may chalk additional messaging next to the original message but only the organization that created the chalking may erase it unless it violates university policy.  If UW–Stevens Point becomes aware of a chalking that violates the university’s UW-Stevens Point Expressive Activity Guidelines (link), UW–Stevens Point staff will remove it. 

All speakers invited to campus through the appropriate campus policies and procedures receive the same First Amendment protections as all other members of the University community. This means that UW–Stevens Point can’t cancel an event or prohibit a speaker because some disagree with the speaker’s opinions and/or find them offensive or hurtful. 

No. If a speaker has been invited by a recognized student organizations or other UW–Stevens Point unit in accordance with appropriate policies, the university cannot prevent or cancel that event because the speaker has viewpoints some, or many, find offensive. 

We reiterate that hosting a speaker does not imply that UW–Stevens Point endorses that speaker’s views or opinions. UW–Stevens Point has a robust and lengthy history of allowing its recognized student organizations to bring speakers to campus each semester who discuss a variety of topics, viewpoints, and opinions. This is an important part of UW–Stevens Point’s educational mission and contributes to free inquiry, open dialogue, and robust debate on campus. 

Yes. The First Amendment protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in protest of speech they find offense. Often, the best response to offensive speech is counter-speech. 

However, demonstrations and/or protests cannot disrupt, interfere with, or shutdown a speaker’s presentation. Doing so is a violation of Board of Regents policy. Please consult the UW-Stevens Point Expressive Activity Guidelines (link) for more information. 

UW–Stevens Point places content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on companies’ and/or organizations abilities to participate in job fairs held in campus facilities. 

Because UW–Stevens Point provides otherwise open opportunities for companies and organizations to participate in job fairs on campus, it can’t prevent company or organization from participating because of the views or opinions of that group, even if its community find those views or opinions offensive or hurtful.   However, all companies and organizations that participate in job fairs must comply with our non-discrimination and other policies, as well as all applicable laws.