A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction against the University of New Mexico after it tried to impose a $5,400 security fee on Turning Point USA and former collegiate swimmer and political activist Riley Gaines for her speaking event on campus, dismissing the school's "security concerns" excuse.
District Judge David Urias' enjoinment stems from the public university’s fee for an event last October involving Gaines and a subsequent lawsuit from Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Gaines praised the ruling in a statement.
Sadly, we see this all the time. Conservative student voices are silenced on campus through excessive fees blamed on security, like in this case, or other red tape that makes it harder for conservative students to use their voice on campus. Colleges and universities should be a place of critical thinking where different ideas are welcomed and encouraged. They should not be a place of political discrimination and suppression of First Amendment rights, like in this case. We are very grateful that the court granted this injunction and saw the irreparable harm that would come if these high fees were applied to our event.
Turning Point USA chapter co-president Jonathan Gonzales said he was “thankful” for the ruling, according to comments provided by the legal foundation.
The court clearly sees the double standard of UNM behind giving a $10,000 fee to our event and yet previously allowing a drag show to take place on campus with no security fee at all.
George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley called the ruling a "notable victory for free speech in creating additional precedent against the use of security fees as a deterrent to groups in inviting targeted speakers like Riley Gaines." The noted constitutional authority added:
Conservative groups have long complained that far left speakers are rarely targeted by cancel campaigns and even more rarely hit with these security fees. In past cases, a security deposit is demanded upfront, creating a barrier for many groups.
Judge Urias found that the fee constituted such a barrier (emphasis, mine).
When a policy allows “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion by the licensing authority, the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to be permitted. … Although the question in this case is closer than that in Forsyth, the Court nonetheless finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the security fee policy in this case is similar enough to render it overly broad.
Although the policy lists criteria for officials to consider when assessing event security, such as venue size and location, the list ultimately leaves the decision of how much to charge for security up to the whim of university officials. For example, the policy does not explain a method for determining how much more security is required for a small venue as compared to a large one, or for a daytime event as compared to a nighttime event.
[...]
Though the security fee policy also states that the police department “regularly” updates the “schedule of charges based on the factors” and that “[t]he basic cost of security according to this schedule will be charged to all groups,” there is no schedule of charges.
In other words, the University of Mexico, which has a history of shutting down conservative and libertarian speaking events, wings it, creating excuses (lying about) fee schedules and such that don't exist. What does exist is just one more example of censorship within the no-longer-hallowed halls of academia.
ALSO READ:
'Academic Echo Chamber': Trust in Higher Education Plummets to Record Low — Is It Any Wonder?
Free Speech Is on the Ballot: Jonathan Turley Shreds Harris for Her Hostility to the 1st Amendment
Speaking of free speech, before we wrap this one up, I'd be remiss if I failed to trot out TDS-riddled Hillary Clinton's latest attack on the First Amendment. During a Sept. 16 appearance on MSNBC (where else?), the ever-bitter Trump-hater, when asked about so-called "disinformation" — facts that run counter to the left's narratives — incredibly said:
I think that there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases, criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrent.
Run that around in your brain a couple of times.
First Amendment rights be damned; speech that the left doesn't like should be a crime, proving that the University of New Mexico ain't got nothin' on Hillary and her ilk.
The Bottom Line
The radical left, to reference the old saw, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time," insidiously continues to chip away at our constitutional rights. We must stop them in their tracks, beginning with winning in November.
