Free speech at the University of Maryland is valued at $6500


As my Dad says, ” there are more ways of choking a cat than stuffing its arse with butter.” The same applies to removing Free Speech. Blatant censorship of Free Speech is only one weapon in the Progressive/Leftist/Liberal/Academic arsenal. Why silence people openly when you can silence them in a clandestine manner? You don’t have to say that their speaker is not welcome, you just have to demand thousands of dollars more than normal in security fees knowing that your conservative/libertarian student body cannot afford to pay it.

Breitbart Senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos? college lecture tour has revealed, amongst many things, the growing threat of administration-imposed censorship of conservative and libertarian ideals on American college campuses.

Just this week, a MILO event scheduled for the University of Maryland was canceled after student organizers failed to raise the $6,500 fee that university administrators required them to raise to cover security costs. This incident has become just another in a series of deceptive plays by administrators to restrict and censor the expression of ideas that conflict with modern academia?s progressive orthodoxy.

Although it seems that university administrators will get away with the censorship of conservative and libertarian ideas under the guise of prioritizing the physical safety of their students, it is likely that the last minute security fee increase and venue change could be a violation of an important 1992 Supreme Court decision.

In?Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement?(1992), the Supreme Court decided that government officials were not permitted to vary security fees for political events based upon an official?s subjective determination of ?the amount of hostility likely to be created by the speech based on its content.?

As a public university, the University of Maryland is bound by the ruling in the 1992 Supreme Court case, which determined that increasing security fees based upon the anticipated hostility of an audience rather than the content of the speaker?s message is a tax on speech and therefore a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

?Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob,? the Forsyth Court wrote, noting that ?[t]hose wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers, for example, may have to pay more for their permit.?

It is important to note the distinction between a demand for increased security based upon the content of speech and a demand for increased security based upon the anticipated volatility of an audience?s reaction to said content. With regards to the incident at the University of Maryland, security fees were increased not as a result of the content of Milo?s speech, but out of concerns that their students wouldn?t be able to behave when faced with ideas that conflict with their own…