Coming to the series mystified.

The idea behind the series was you
know all the fun that we all tend

to in our little corner of things once
in a while it's good to step back and

hear about some topics that
are interest what's that may have line

question are they getting jobs or as we
you know you don't interview positions or

look to being in new positions but it
might be insightful to know these things

as we step into them so
that's the idea behind the series and

we try to pick topics that are of interest
to faculty staff and students to go in for

that much so
today's topic is actually quite time like.

Free Speech Political Correctness How
does this play out on campus.

You know we've had a number of campuses
across the country deal with invitations

to country virtual figures whether to
indict them to multiply them if you invite

them when you have a ton of security
concerns student protests etc So

we really appreciate that you were
willing to take some time and talk about.

These topics and for me as a non US
citizen that did not grow up with you

know First Amendment rights it's always
a little fuzzy what exactly it is and

what it up lies and
what doesn't apply etc So

I'm also interested that's part of my
continuing education and a cultural

at that station and assimilation
to the United States so we have

with us Kathleen Gaston choose a senior
attorney and the Office of Legal Affairs

she joined Georgia Tech in two thousand
and eleven she advises on employment

matters discrimination laws constitutional
concerns compliance requirements Title X.

and litigation issues she

has an extensive background in
the geisha and constitutional.

Higher education.

Employment Law.

I mean the bio is very impressive I'm.

Sure as you know she has more.

Fortunate but.

She has made successful arguments
before the eleventh Circuit Court

of the Georgia Supreme Court so
well represented.

And then we have Kate wash managing editor
at the same office office of errors and

she's the head of the employment in
litigation who's responsible it's easy

to implement matters.

To defense with a focus on things you can
traditional process of appeals so you know

search warrant compliance Open Records Act
clients critical incident response and

training of supervisors and
managers so she.

Has been at Georgia Tech for
a long time so

liberated my nineteen year anniversary
last Friday my gosh Congratulations

almost a twenty now that you started
here as a job professor I teach you so

you've been I did I did adjunct in
addition to my day job teaching so

soon as I was well yeah so we're very
appreciative that you took time out of

your busy schedules you know the floor is
yours thank you very much good morning.

They said there were
forty eight responses and

I am a little nervous but
I think we're going to be good.

It's like something like
a quarter of that so.

We've been introduced so that's all good
we're going to just have a little bit of

a conversation about the First Amendment
and how it works on a college campus and

very specifically on this college campus.

I understand that we
have faculty staff and

students in the audiences aren't any
students at all in a row except for you.

Know you don't have to it's OK.

So there are a lot of matters
where you are measured in terms

of the First Amendment and how it's
going to operate for you on this campus.

So.

We've got.
What they area but

the First Amendment actually says says
opposed to it are one thing since it is

all right so Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof or
abridging the freedom of speech and I'm

going to skip of course or of the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and

to petition the government for a redress
of grievances the first thing I think

that people often seem to forget about the
First Amendment is they're talking about

the government imposing its will upon you
or preventing you from speaking or saying

something about the way these very it's
not it doesn't apply to private entities.

Companies can fire you if they don't
like what you say the state cannot.

But I just because they don't like to say.

So on college campuses it
is really important for

us as the really vs James Case says
to protect constitutional freedoms

because we want to see you know we want
to be able to engage in discourse and

educational discourse on college campuses
so our teachers and students have to be

free to inquire to study and
evaluate to gain new maturity and

understanding and otherwise our
civilization will stagnate and

die as a cheery outlook Thank
you fifty seven but still.

So we have some policies around these.

Ideas U.S.G.
policy the unique university system

of Georgia policy which is our
sort of parent corporation right.

Has a policy saying their rights under
the First Amendment are of the utmost

importance and that the university system
is committed to protecting those rights.

And I would just add that this is a really
important issue to the U.S.G. and

they are actually looking at it and
they just want to make sure that everybody

knows that you are encouraged to have
conversations all over campus and when we

do have to have restrictions on speech
that that that's in rare circumstances.

And that they want everyone to
know that we are encouraging to

civilize discussions but discussion
I was going to say peaceable but

civilized also a good lawyer.

And peaceable is actually kind of
required civilized is as foundational.

But peaceable is actually
a requirement of these discussions.

And so to augment the regents
policy we've got our own policy and

again holding the First Amendment
guarantee of freedom of speech freedom

of expression and
the right to assemble peaceably

is an essential cornerstone of
the advancement of knowledge.

No no no quarrel with that.

So a lot of these things are.

And have been the source of litigation
over the years as one might imagine.

So there are a lot of a legal cases
out there that really expand upon

those few words of the First Amendment and

think about it we've got like two
sentences that have spawned one hundred

fifty years worth of litigation at
all kinds of places over the years.

So.

And particularly active during the civil
rights movement and the Vietnam War You

know there's shifting tides in society and
the courts have to race to to catch up.

And say you know can you do this so

a lot of the important cases in Syria are
in fact around the time to be a non-war

and there's someone trying
to come in the morning.

So one of the first issues that
we think about in looking at

expressive activity under
the First Amendment or speech and

the First Amendment is to decide
is it speech or is it conduct So

is it pure speech that is
you either say something or

you write it down whether on
paper in cyberspace wherever and

that's pure speech but then you can have
activity that also communicates a message

wearing an armband leafleting
picketing demonstrations

remaining silent in the face of some
argument those sorts of activities.

So again these are older cases that
talk about these issues there is one

out of California during the Vietnam War
where a guy had an a letter jacket and

shouting was a jean jacket and
this is one nine hundred seventy

I think about what's going on in one nine
hundred seventy and he has a jacket and

puts at the draft on the back of it and
he got arrested in a courthouse

Yeah in a courthouse because the he was
wearing the jacket in the courthouse so

they didn't care for that and
they decided that that is protected

speech is not obscene they were not
fighting words it's not a criminal offense

you cannot be arrested for wearing
a garment that has those words on it.

That's a case that went all the way up to
the U.S. Supreme Court right that's how

contested you know it was at that point in
time I mean now that seems kind of tame.

Yeah actually seems really tame concern
considering one what we've seen lately.

The other kind of big case at that
time is out of Des Moines Iowa of all

places and you would think the Moyen would
have really nothing much going on but

they had this big case in
one thousand sixty nine and

the students were wearing
armbands basically.

You know protesting some
things that happened there and

they said you know this is
not disruptive conduct this

is a United States Marine Corps thing
you can wear an armband to high school.

That says you know P.O.W.'s or you know
that you're in favor of war you're

against the war or
whatever one's going to be would say.

But there again those are students and
the school regulation

prohibiting students from wearing those
armbands violated the First Amendment and

there's no evidence that they thought
it was going to be disruption

interfering with the work of the school or
anything like that.

So the court had a shot a movement away
from recognizing some rights of students

college students are going to have more
latitude though than high school students

the courts have found a greater
interest in kind of regulating

the goings on of a high school than
they would on a college campus and

basically the younger the students
are the more regulation is allowed.

Because you hope that your fifth graders
don't know a lot of these things but

they probably know a lot of things and.

So.

I wasn't going to elaborate more
on that that's the part no.

That is something that you can

do in some sort of you know somebody
trying to engage in a confrontation.

Or you know people are going to recite
something or saying something and

you don't want to you may remain
silent that can be considered a form

of protected expression.

OK right.

So I think that for a second I'm like OK
so that silence as an act of an expression

isn't right and
therefore it's yes protested right and

then there's forced speech
which is a different thing but

that's that's not really what we were
talking about I'm talking about where

everybody else is doing something and
you don't want to you don't have to.

Say yeah.

Or you know remaining silent
just on the phrase under God

during the Pledge of Allegiance which
you know a lot of people do that.

Is just you know there's there's
no law that says you have to.

And further questions about that.

OK you can always circle
back to me I mean you know.

We're open to a conversation.

So I wear my.

Kinds of speech OK it's
what kind of speech is it.

So there is traditional First Amendment
speech which ordinarily I mean think about

it you know you go back and
you see in your mind here all

of founders of the country out
there where in those long coats and

carrying their muskets and hanging out in
the park and talking about King George and

how horribly it is right that's pure
traditional First Amendment speech

OK I didn't stop there but that's always
the picture I have in my mind and

I think about that because
that's what we're talking about.

So that's step that kind of speech
may happen to occur on campus

OK so it's not these other kind speech and
talk about in just a second so

it's not official speech when we talk
about official speech what we're talking

about is somebody speaking as
a representative of Georgia Tech So for

example the president of Georgia Tech
speaks as a representative of Georgia Tech

all the time all right.

I rarely do that and
students in most instances unless they're

also employees we don't consider to
be speaking as Georgia Tech right.

Here speaking as a citizen right and
that's so

that's the tricky thing here because then
we talk about school sponsored speeches

can somebody reasonably think
that it's the school speaking and

that's harder with employees and
staff than it is with students

paternally faculty yet particularly
faculty and particularly if you're sending

stuff out using your god tech daddy to you
address or using your god tech website or

something like that so that's a really
hard distinction sometimes for

us to draw but it's one that we
do occasionally have to draw.

So if you're representing Georgia Tech.

In your speech.

We've got to talk about OK well
is that really the official

position of the Institute on
whatever the whatever the matter is

versus your Facebook post right
that's your personal account.

Speaking on your views
as an individual but

it gets messy particularly with
the faculty if you're talking

about something that might be in your area
of expertise right well that gets into and

we talk about that a little more later
because there is the First Amendment

which is the state cannot prevent you
from saying certain things there is

you're an employee which means you have
an obligation to perform your job.

And then there is your status as a citizen
which means you can say whatever you like

within the confines of the First Amendment
which are pretty broad but

if your job is teaching and
you start teaching that the earth is

flat which I think we all agree
it is not right yes yes OK.

That's a problem and
that's no longer a first and

that's not a First Amendment issue any
more right that's not you can say that if

you want outside of your classroom but if
you're teaching that to your students and

it is factually wrong and accepted by
you know virtually hundred percent

of the scientists in the universe
that they were these not planned and

you're teaching that that's a competency
issue right and it's a real problem if

it's an English class well yeah yeah well
that's you know then you're off topic.

And we can talk a little Haven't we get to
that a little bit too but but you know so

say you know the classic example is
a professor is in a classroom and

they're supposed to be teaching history
and instead they start talking about

religion not in the context of history but
hi I'm a Christian.

You know it's really important to me that
I behave according to Christian ideals and

if you see during this class that I'm not
doing that I want you to let me know.

That's that's dancing on
the edge right there OK.

That's a very different kind of animal.

So kinds of speech matter so traditional
First Amendment speech official

speech that is by somebody employed by
Georgia Tech on behalf of Georgia Tech and

then school sponsored speech which
is always the messy one Yes Well.

We're all about the messy one.

Yes we're.

Discussed as can be good for I don't know
maybe because we've put a pin in that and

yeah OK we are going to
get to some of that and

we're open to questions as we go along but
you know the examples are always the hard

thing because we're trying to make
sure that what we are talking about in

terms of examples are things that
are well settled in the case all

right clear cut because we are not
speaking about the Georgia Tech right or

certainly not being on behalf of the
border regions where you're kind of giving

you a little bit of a introduction
to the many many years

of persimmon case all but there are a lot
of cases out there so we're going to talk

about some of those examples a little more
but we can absolutely come back to and.

That's yours speaking at a conference
on the have you been asked as

a representative of Georgia Tech
that's your connection.

So you've gone to now you're representing
Georgia Tech the things that you say

people will think that those have
been endorsed by the administration.

You know and it gets messier
when you talk about science.

If you.

That's that's messy
speech that right there.

It can be perceived as something
with the institution agrees or

at least the institutions backing you
even if there is no overarching you know

Research Council saying yeah barrels
research is all good right there it's

just their idea that there's this imprint
by the institution if you're out there

speaking as a Georgia Tech employee rather
than as the expert in the field and

are you speaking about what you do it
Georgia Tech you know in your role.

And.

That's of really messy situation and
you're well on that one I will say

what I thought I you know what
I think is that that speech

here is that that's your area of expertise
when I make that assumption OK decides in

your field of study OK So you know
within your field of study Yeah you can

have that opinion again you know whether
or not the leadership in your school or

college will believe that you are remain
competent to teach in your subject matter

is a different issue but
we can't keep you from saying.

So it makes sense you can say it but there
may be non First Amendment consequences

let's put it that way well there was
a recent case coming out of Florida

that talked with there was
a professor of media and

he was a he is believed Sandy Hook
the Sandy Hook massacre

was a set it was a conspiracy and
he's blogged extensively about this

he's gone so far as to contact that the
parents of the children that were killed

allegedly killed Well I think we
according to him according to him.

But so what the school did with
him because in his media class

he wasn't bringing this up he was
tenured it's a public university.

But they reached an agreement that
he would put a disclaimer on his

blog post to say these are not
the views of my school.

To be explicit about it now is still
in litigation will be for a while

it will be for a while the district court
just denied the school's motion for

summary judgment on his First Amendment
retaliation claim he was alternately

terminated for not completing conflict
of interest disclosure forms and

mines we do remember to complete
your conflict of interest.

But the the court looking at the paper
record it which is what you do a summary

judgment well at that stage of the game
said there's enough here to suggest

the public pressure to fire
this person for his unpopular

controversial views there's enough
there to go forward with a trial so.

That decision just came down about two
weeks ago so that will keep her safe and

that case is going to go on you know they
may ultimately settle it because frankly

litigation is very expensive right
time consuming I'm consuming and

you know my time is money and
all that good stuff so so

we'll see how that shakes out but
it's a pretty good into.

Arm started to have a question yes.

Fire him for
using a lot of blood in his life

not even just something I mean
really very intense a lot.

It's not the holding of the fuse that
it's you it's the expression of them and

where and when and how it occurs in
that case is harder because it's

outside of the institution he's
not doing this in the classroom

he is not using the colleges
resources just say these things and

there is an express disclaimer right and
he's not direct that speech isn't directed

at anyone who would be his student I
think or his colleague or his colleague.

You know I like to think of it with
the with the First Amendment you know

where it really gets messy is where one
person's freedom of expression bumps up

against another person's right to be in an
environment that's free from harassment.

And that's it's complicated and it's and
it's nuanced which is to say every case

is different so I mean it depends on
the facts in every single case so

is it illegal to fire a person for holding
believes in most cases it probably is not

going to fare well in the courts Let's
say that but if that person is is.

Expressing those views in the classroom or
in dealing with students or

colleagues in a way that constitutes
some other prohibiting conduct.

That's a different story.

And we're in we're going to
touch on that where we get into

if you want to in our segue into
the types of speech that I have for this.

In fact this is.

Why the universities are not required to
abide by the terms of the First Amendment

now but live.

He could be fired immediately a lot of
private universities actually have rules

that say we know we don't have to but
we're going to follow that for.

Amendment anyhow because we're
a college or university and

we want people to be able to freely
engage in these conversations and

learn some places had state laws
that require private colleges and

universities to essentially
abide by the First Amendment.

And if they accept federal funding.

They're going to be tied to things like
Title Nine which is not a free speech

thing but also talks about you
know harassment discrimination and

other forms of contact and
then you add in tenure or

is your faculty unionized you can have
a lot more wrinkles of protection for

the faculty members even if it
is a private college right.

Where my OK I think
we're going to get into

well we're going to do a quick thing on
the on what's not protected and then talk

about restrictions that we're going to get
into I think some of the hate speech and

discrimination the harassment and
we're after.

Not the we're going to do any
of those things but all right so

what speech is not protected by the First
Amendment right threats like terrorist

threats pure speech that we can
prohibit you know somebody walks up and

says Your Money or Your Life that is not
protected by the First Amendment right.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater seal
right that's the classic is yelling fire

where there is no fire because I'm
a stampede and causing the stampede and

people die and they're no Bahrain so
that's cool that's pretty classic.

Fighting words that has to be sort of
face to face that would incite and

immediate and

violent reaction and that's one of those
you know fighting words are always hard.

Cases definitely differ and yeah.

So it has to be sort of not just a speech
that inflicts injury that's insulting to

you but it's going they're going to look
at all the circumstances of the case so

what was going on right before you said
you know I'll kill you or you know you

can punch me or whatever and there's even
one case that involved one of those.

Campus preachers that comes around and
says mean things to people and

a court found concluded that calling
a young girl a twelve year old a slut and

a whore that those are fighting words
that I don't know that every court

will not everyone's going to agree to
something that's right so you know.

Well to get we're talking there's
offensive and then there's you know

stuff that's not protected by the First
Amendment so they're different things.

And so fighting words provoking
an immediate reaction incitement

which has to be about something
they want you to do now and

this is come up I think in some of the.

The protests where they've got a political
speaker they've got you know protesters in

the audience and people are going you know
burn down the building or whatever well

you know come back and burn down the bill
you know somebody has to do something

about this building is one thing OK and
that's not going to be incitement but

you know come on guys let's go said fire
to the state capitol that's incitement

OK that's not going to be protected by
the First Amendment but it has to be

an immediate threat not somebody should
do something about that that's that's

a different animal right and not something
that's open to interpretation you know.

And of course you know obscenity which
is one of those things as always

really hard to define pornography is
protected by the First Amendment so

long it is as it is not child pornography
which is illegal everywhere all the time

just in case you didn't.

So but among consenting adults is only
obscenity that's banned pornography is

legal in obviously that's

pretty might be difficult to draw
the line between those right.

And you know I didn't think I was going to
go down a little Rabbit Hole In The irony

but I'm not going to do that today.

All right so what are permissible
restrictions on speech that is otherwise

protected by the First Amendment OK
well you can't just.

Made based on viewpoint that is if you're
going to allow somebody to come and

speak about abortion rights in a specific
area at a specific time you can't decide

which side of that question they
take me so that's viewpoint.

Content Well we consume regulate some
speech under limited circumstances so

for example they are allowed to
campaign you're going to vote

you're walking up to your
little voting booth or

you're a little you know photo habit or
whether things are anymore.

You can have a candidate pretty much
at your shoulder going hey vote for me.

So we can we can limit that kind of
speech in a very specific way for

a very specific time period.

And I'm going to be looked at very
carefully by a court to make sure

that it's narrowly tailored to
serve the government's interests so

you know you may have an interest for
example.

You know if you allow
student organizations to use

certain facilities on campus maybe you
know you got to reserve it or whatever but

any student organization can do this
you can't say Well well this is

a religious student organization so we're
not going to allow them to use this space

because that viewpoint you describe and

doesn't go I would add to that is that
the United States Supreme Court has said

that we can have an all comers policy
which means student groups are open

to all students who want to join
the group that you can't say you

cannot be a member of this group unless
you are a member of this religion right.

Does that make sense.

Yes.

You mean

a student white supremacist group
that's an officially registered

student organization they would be able
to use the same space as anybody else.

Whether they would get through
the official you know student

organization registration process.

You know but
I don't think that that's that stringent.

Right and I say you know to me one of the
one of the big points when we're talking

about the First Amendment is you know
a lot of people are really offensive or

they say things that are really awful and
that there are remedies for

that but the First Amendment
really doesn't help you.

Because the remedy for
offensive speech is always more speech

preferably reason speech
on the other side.

And so you know really talking about
the First Amendment is what we do as

a government actor versus what
you do as community members

in talking to one another and in debating
issues and in posting and and protesting.

Because you know there is a lot of there
are a lot of offensive comments and

a lot of people taking offense
out there these days and things.

You know look at any any news article and
look at the common thread and

you're just like wow so I have nothing to
rule by the way after I don't cry anything

comments anymore because I cannot deal.

Because a lot of us just name
calling you know everybody and

I'm not saying was I the I'm just saying
there's just a lot of name calling and

I find that to be not useful.

Or you know not not something
I need to make part of my day.

Yes.

Are you sure you were going to
raise the what they call a.

Trigger we were here.

Yes but it ends up it's not really a First
Amendment issue so that as you know under

the First Amendment you can call people
whatever name you want Very where we would

start getting stoned is if
it becomes harassment or

discrimination so and we've got a little
bit on harassment in a minute but

but but that's the sort of the short
answer is the First Amendment says you can

call people names by the way it does not
say that you will retain any friends.

But you can call people names if you want.

But eventually you're going to hit

if you don't know the things we talk
about which are discrimination and

harassment which as a state actor
you're not allowed to engage in yes.

And I think you are going to let me
yes I have when I think if one or

one of the OK say yes and burn down the
building on fire now doing what you're.

Hearing.

I don't think that is
either I really don't but

I think June of twenty nine hundred
five were tempted because there are so

many things could happen in between there
but they might tomorrow probably isn't and

and might not get punished for
the speech you might be investigated for

your criminal conspiracy or
terroristic threat terroristic threat

that would be other part so you may
not come under incitement for that but

I think you buy would come under the
threats which are also pretty you know not

protected by the first woman and
then your actions towards furthering.

Undergoing right could be criminal.

So we don't recommend it.

Actually don't say that.

One should not do that.

Right student speech so
I had to keep running around to make sure

that it's now winding up
with what's inviting me.

So we can adopt as a public
institution what they call reasonable

nondiscriminatory time place and
manner restrictions so

they have to be content neutral and
applied consistently So

what does that mean well you know
we're talking about can you have

a gathering on you know out by the camp
anneal at midnight with amplification.

Because it's midnight and
you're using an amplifier and

it doesn't matter what you want to say or
what you plan to say or

what you do say is that we don't allow
people to get out there with loudspeakers

in midnight because that's a reasonable
time place and manner restrictions.

That make sense we're not shutting down
a type of speech we're just saying

people need to sleep yeah especially us.

So so this is getting at some of
the of the questions that we've been

we've been talking about so far and

that is there is no hate speech
exception to the First Amendment.

Right so there is there was offensive
speech there's hate speech and

that is all protected
by the First Amendment.

Which is basically a form of kind.

So you know speech codes and hate speech.

Those were really popular I think what in
the ninety's been so a lot of schools.

Of thought you know we want everyone
to treat each other with respect

to be civil to think of
others feelings which

are our great aspirator a lot
of all goals and we have some of

those in our in our Georgia Tech statement
of value of we would like everyone.

And to treat each other with respect
that would be great the problem is if

we say as a school we're going
to make you do that that's where

the speech codes I had a couple problems
of one if you're saying something that

you know is protected under the First
Amendment if we take action against you

that's unconstitutional disciplinary
action the other problem with the student

speech codes is we're talking about
things that are nuanced subjective just

really hard to make it clear and that's
a problem for a student and an employee if

you have a policy that you can be subject
to discipline it needs to be clear so

you know what conduct is prohibited or
what speech is prohibited and who decides

what violates the policy so I don't think
a lot of schools have them anymore.

And most schools have what we have
which is a sort of aspirational

statement says We we're only
wish you would all be nice.

And treat each other with respect and
you know wear pants whatever and

then have an anti harassment
policy that says so

if you engage in conduct that
creates a hostile environment for

someone else based on a protected
category that's a problem.

Yeah because we're required under Title
seven and Title nine among other laws

to ensure that discrimination and
harassment do not occur here yes very.

Close to the base but it's.

Not OK if it rises to a certain level so

that's where once a person's
rights interfere.

It's discrimination.

And so a court's going to look
at both the subjective and

objective component to that.

Looking at the totality of circumstances
are the things being said and

done to this person creating
a hostile environment that

interferes with their ability
to have arts go to that.

Well I mean it is OK so then the
harassment when we were talking about time

place and manner restrictions right so

think of harassment as one
of those it's of repeated.

Insults at inappropriate times and
places it is per basic been enough

to make the victim an able to
either engage in their education or

to work effectively and it's also
then be looked at from an objective

reasonable person standard right so
it's not just if the person feels like

they've been the you some people are more
sensitive than others right and so

that's sort of the court's way of
saying we're going to balance that

with out of fact an average person right.

Engages in each of these for
one hour the general public.

That is not harassment or discrimination
because they didn't repeat legal after law

and I think it's repeatedly now bad
that when there was a case said and

I never remember who was you Penn or Penn
State ten years ago maybe and it was one

of the typical you know fire and brimstone
preachers that came to campus and

he was preaching on campus and you know
sort of you know gays are evil and

all this stuff and all that is protected
by the First Amendment where he got

into trouble was he was actually addressed
a specific person in the crowd and

was calling that person
names in front of everybody.

And it was actually more than that so
you know more than just calling names but

insults and you know you're going to hell
and all those are getting a a person or

a group of persons or

where where it occurs matters to because
if there's a controversial speaker and

there's a rally and there's a there's
a place you don't have to go there but

if someone is saying things to you in your
classroom that's very different right.

I know that's helpful and all but but
you know the problem with these cases

you know when you're trying to think
about what behavior is permissible or

not permissible is it's
really fact depended

who is the speaker who is the victim where
are they what did they say how many times

did they say it how bad was it what's
their history was the context.

Is there a purpose to this speech right
and the courts don't have a uniform

application he hasn't said back to
second because of some nuance and

I think there are some cases.

I'm thinking of they cut there
are a couple cases that were.

Ugly women contests and
involve attorney members dressing up in

racial stereotypes as women and
they were to decide to to

happen at two different schools and the
court found in favor of the fraternities

I don't know that that necessarily
would be the same Today analysis today.

You know the cases had some some
facts it could go either way and

I think a different court looking at
it could conclude differently and

say this came into the student union you
were people are eating their lunch and

studying and so it's been a long
way of saying it's going to depend.

If we get to litigation.

You guys saw him again yes.

I'm sorry would you mind standing I can't.

Get you're being recorded
recorded also away.

From the school in the past about my.

Age and.

So that's when I was thinking about that
actually those are as that's what I think

about all the time as are other
categories we have attacked speech and

those are those are on protected
speech as well libel and

slander of course deal in false facts not.

Not poor opinions of people but libel and
slander are based on you saying bad things

about somebody that could damage them
in their ability to say are a living so

you can call me you know you can say Kate
is a mean and nasty woman and I'm like

you know that's your opinion whatever and
there's nothing I can do about that.

But if you say Kate is a thief.

That's a big deal or
can is unlicensed or I am and

I'm licensed to practice law which
would really be a big deal but

I was talking about the the part because
that's something that would make me

unqualified practice law and
continue to earn a living.

Not no don't say that place.

You have custody so it has to be a false
fact though that's why I was saying thief

vs not a nice person nasty woman whatever
that's opinion that's still protected

it has to be a fact because truth as it
is hands on truth truth isn't a defense

to slander say you know what I say Yeah I
said that but it was true so it has

to be a verifiable fact that it's capable
of being proven true or false right.

If it's true.

But if not true then I
will get big money but

that's going to come up really more
in the context of one person bringing

litigation against another person right
yet the state cannot bring suit for

libel or slander so believe it or
not I had a look at that once so

I'm sorry did you have another question
and I'm sorry that in the primaries.

I'm still thinking.

It's the difference between looking thing
with the law and the second OK as fact.

It's going to turn a way around that all
right student speech in the classroom

you know we're still when we want to still
participate in the marketplace of ideas

and so we want to know what people
think about this subject matter.

However students are not allowed to merely
disrupt class for entertainment right

pressures control their
classrooms at all times so.

And there are sort of bounds of
permissible disagreement that there

are not that many cases actually about
students in the classroom one of the few

that I found ended up being settled but
it was very interesting because.

Here's a woman who was a devout Mormon and
she was in the actor training program

at the University of Utah and as part of
their program she was required to use

vulgar language as part of a play so
it's part of the script and

to play risque roles and she withdrew
after she was told by her instructors to

get over it and that the script
has to be performed as written and

the faculty members would
not change their minds.

So she sued claiming by lation of
her constitutional rights and.

Both by Free Exercise of Religion which
is the first clause that we're not really

talking about much and to free speech by
coercing her to speak these vulgar words.

District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of the university

which I think was right
the student appealed and

the case settled before a final
decision was made on the merits so so

that's kind of what we're looking at but I
think the court did have it right in that

you know if we decide that there
is a valid educational perp.

It's just something and they give courts
give us a lot of latitude they're

all right so if you're in a program where
you're learning to be an actor well you're

going to act Here's a script you know so
it's a unique situation but

it's a luster to by Think of the things
that might be encountered along the way

John we've seen it come up in in
the system in the context of you sort of

the overlap with First Amendment and
freedom of religion in nursing programs or

counseling programs where someone's
religious beliefs may butt up against.

What their ability to fulfill
the professional staff.

So councillors who are a few
straight gay people.

Which I just that's happened
more than was all right.

It was the other nursing students Yeah I
mean I think it mostly comes up in the you

context and then.

Are are you able to counsel someone who's.

Depressed.

Let your doctor in your system
never actually hear you used to

give fortune or
insulate me that option you know.

I'm.

Going to say yes but it was not really
something that we deal with much here.

So that's really going out into
the sort of theoretical room but

you know we can't force doctors to perform

surgeries that they don't want to perform
regardless of their lives yet and

you can allocated in the license sure
though if you're not giving accurate

information as a physician that's where I
can see it coming up where your medical

board may have a problem if you are giving
persons incorrect medical information.

Like.

I think it's going to end up being
a licensure issue rather than

a First Amendment issue.

There is just a case well there Scott
in the last couple of days gone

at the US out in California because
they have the pregnancy crisis

centers which are not actually health
care providers were required are required

to post a notice to the clients that
come in to notify them that they

are not health care providers and they
can obtain abortions was the other the SO

was there were a couple of things
that were required under state law

in California to tell their patients and
so far the state is winning.

But we'll see I mean that's it that has
impact on both sides of the issue because

you also have as your example the health
care provider who's not giving full

information I've also got state laws in
some places that compel physicians or

health care providers
to say certain things.

So.

It'll be interesting you have
Florida had for a while a law that

required doctors to ask about guns what
happened do you know what have that I mean

then they were I thought told that they
could not ask about guns because I.

Like it when you take your child to
a pediatrician that's a common question as

do you have lead paint in your house has
a family member travel to another country

and it's a public health it's question
like health questionnaire essentially.

But there was as a state law preventing
physicians from inquiring about that.

Now that they did they perceived it
as an infringement upon their second

amendment right I mean.

It was I didn't understand it but
that's what they say Let it so

it's it's a very political issue
as many of these things are.

It is kind of to see how things shake out
but until the United States Supreme Court

says one way or
the other how it's going to fly.

You know we're all doing the best we
can to work in the middle ground.

OK.

All right and.

We only have ten minutes left Ari I know
you're only through our Slough we don't

need to get all the supplies you're
getting you're getting I have I think so

speech by Professor that we talked about
this already really so if you're in

the classroom you know it has to be
related to the topic you're teaching.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

You know that's not the occasional
stray comment about the weather

sorry that's getting up and
getting a diatribe on religious beliefs or

something like that when that is not
the subject you are teaching right and

again as I had said earlier that's not
always a first amendment issue that can be

a competence issue at
some stage you are not

teaching the material you're
supposed to be teaching OK.

Academic freedom applies of
course within your field right

I'm not going to tell you you know that
the you know you have to think one way or

another about climate change I'm not
a scientist I have an opinion but

that's a different day so
if that's your field of study.

You are free to form your opinions
within the bounds of competence.

But then you get out of the First
Amendment issue into the employment issue.

That makes sense.

All right.

You know because and I talked a little
bit about religion because that's sort

of the thing that comes up a lot there
was a professor at he was a professor of

exercise physiology at the University of
Alabama Tuscaloosa as it turns out and

so he would you know ask students to let
him know did they find him you know.

Not acting consistently with Christianity
said his his religious beliefs

were more important than academic
production but he didn't he didn't gaijin

engage in prayer in class he didn't read
out Bible passages or anything like that.

But the university said you know stop
saying this stuff in class OK and

he sued claiming violations of free speech
academic freedom and religious liberty and

the eleventh Circuit which is our circuit
barrel circuit court said the university

can tell him to stop.

So.

Speech by employees you know this is
again it's related to the faculty

issues it's talking about your interest
as a citizen speaking out on a matter

of public concern weighed against
the government's interests so

if you are an employee of Georgia Tech and
you are talking about.

You know state budgets and how much money
Georgia Tech gets from the state or

something like that you know that's in in
all likelihood going to be permissible and

that's going to be protected by
the First Amendment if you're complaining

about the budget because your
race is not large enough

that is less likely to be
protected by the First Amendment.

Which is not to say you can't
do it everybody does but and

to say it's a little bit different and if
you're the comptroller complaining about

the numbers not adding up that might be
part of your job duties and so on that's

gross out in the you know and that would
not be protected by the First Amendment.

Because it's your job to figure out
whether it whether these numbers add up or

not that's all part of your job and
it's not you as a citizen.

The last one right.

So the cyberspace thing you know the
Internet is just a form of communication

we've talked about some of
the stuff already libel and

slander of sexual harassment rights of
privacy we didn't talk about copyright but

these are all those laws have been out
there for a long time before there was

an internet before Al Gore invented
the Internet we still had these laws and

policies right so you don't need
a specific rule against harassment

by computer because harassment
is already against policies and

laws that make sense everybody can.

Cyberspace and social media.

Again it's it's the same rules it's
just very complicated now because

the access and the volume and
volume in particular.

So you know so stuff about the college
network off campus said so

here you are you're
an employee of Georgia Tech but

you're posting on your
personal Facebook page.

When I can touch them.

Unless you start making threats or

something then we're going
right call the police but.

Normally we don't do a lot with that.

And as an Internet service
provider to students are not

monitoring what's to use do I do believe
there are some filters to keep students

from accessing sites that are known to
be malicious malicious or homes for

copyright infringement you know if
you had pirated movie site that might

be filtered out well you know there are
a lot of procedures in place on that but

I have got Open Records Act Up next so
this is actually a good time for

us to talk a little bit about
the differences in how we treat students

versus everybody else on the network here
so students we are an Internet service

provider to students we don't monitor
content we don't do any of that step

there is a magical machine somewhere
that monitors bandwidth usage and

that's usually how we find out about
people illegally downloading movies.

If people do that anymore who knows.

So they just use up a lot of space on
the band with and they were like Hey and

we poke around or we get a notice from
somebody that says somebody using this IP

address illegally downloaded five
hundred copies of some of your other and

then we track it down and say hey stop
that as an Internet service provider we're

obligated tell you not to
violate copyright law.

Employees are different

because you're using a Georgia Tech
account you're on a Georgia Tech machine

we can look at it whenever we want I will
point out that we usually don't want to

write there are a lot of employees we
don't have time frankly to sit and

monitor the content of everything goes
by if we have a reason to look we can't.

The other thing that we may have to do is
if we get an Open Records Act request for

all of you know all of Kate
washes e-mail for the period from

January one to March thirty one twenty
seventeen we have to answer that.

And we'll pull all the e-mail out and
look at it.

And say we started this not me personally
because I don't do that then I thought I

would spend a little bit of a shift that's
open records was originally envisioned as

as the custodian of the record to
pull their own things but now are so

cloud based that generally speaking if
we get an Open Records Act request for

a faculty or staff members e-mails
I will pull those right off.

Every day time.

Well we don't know the reason the and
they don't have to tell us

all right so that's the thing about
The Open Records Act because the idea of

the Open Records Act is lot of bull and
that is.

A citizen should know what their
government is doing particularly with

their money but there is nothing in
the open the records act that requires

the person asking for records to tell us
why sometimes they do and a lot of times

they don't and sometimes we get broad
requests and we actually communicate with

the requester to say what are you trying
to get because if you just asked us for

all of these e-mails you're going
to get a dump you know a whole but

whole bunch of stuff you don't want
which you know we're happy to do but

it will cost you a lot of
charge people by the way for

takes more than fifteen
minutes we charge by the hour.

For doing this.

So the communications are going to be
subject to disclosure to just about anyone

who has the most common reason by the bill
there are two common reasons the first one

is a disgruntled employee who wants to
know how much does Kathleen make I make

less than that why is that I want to see
her performance evaluations right which

they can't so so that's sort of one
area where we get a lot of requests

the other one is media
requests who are either.

Lately it's been either
stuff about athletics or

things about Title nine hearings so

those are those have been sort of the most
frequent ones that we've had lately.

But you know we do have requests to Kate.

And it's not so much for e-mail these
days some of it's for you mail.

But it's just for different things that
that the members are doing you know how

many research projects do we have
from the Department of Energy.

And if we have records then
we have to produce this and

sometimes it is a vendetta.

That it's often a vendetta I want to see
this person's e-mail to see if there's

anything embarrassing in it right
because then I want to publish it so

keep that in mind by the way when
you're writing your e-mails and

you're an employee of the Institute
anybody can read them and

they might but it won't be me yes.

But I felt like I said.

Yes And then you would get you know
it should come through our office or

the point office for
Open Records Act requests at this point.

And we withhold information and we would
review it to make sure that we're not

giving out anything that's exempt from
disclosure right so a student records

are exempt from disclosure anything
that identifies a student in any way

we've got two questions over there
would be exempt from disclosure so

we tried to do that other thread secrets
revealed you know progress I mean there

are a lot of exemptions out there and
we would we would pay attention to those.

Like cutting the exam that
would be exactly where we would

only want to look at that I mean
we don't seriously we don't.

Have one from the state and then one in
the back wound so any person can request

those records for any reason like about
me as a slave I'm afraid so really.

This crazy.

Usually.

And I say usually because
sometimes it's not that simple.

QUESTION But when they.

Are Freedom of Information.

That's We have a few of these the most
searched for work yeah so for

instance your body every month.

Heard myself heard by police it's
probably got some surgery tech but

how the heck would I ever get it right I.

Why do you have to provide the mind set.

Items that are in my box or
my delete if I don't have easy access.

Here we're not we're not required
to do an exhaustive search but

in those cases now since we've moved to.

Outlook So

there's it's going to be sitting on
a no i t server and they'll pull it.

For some period of time we don't have to
keep things forever might be less we get

a request we have to keep it but
we are obligated to keep everything for

ever but there is a whole separate set
of rules about how long you have to

keep it up which we're not time for it but
there is a set of rules for that but

I just use your personal email for
personal info are.

You know like.

Me I said you're getting I got it again
you're going to go back no I didn't belong

to that auto i t first so
you are not to waste your time doing it.

That's no that's that's
a relatively recent procedure but

we change that rule once it was easier for
ID to do it we'll make you go but

we'll tell you hey we're going
to produce all your stuff

you have anything you're
concerned about you publish your.

Fantastic well do that
now today all right we

are out of time it's been lovely spending
time with you any last questions concerns.

You can.

Record.

Yes or.

No expression from.

The story from your son we're
going to rock we're going to call.

Friends this is the recipe.

I want to.

Be one of the charges were
brought forward with this is our.

Comfort zone where those were the words
from some judges expression with me wife.

You know.

What's.

This this drug that's I'm sorry.

Wow I think that's going to end up being
more of a terroristic threat question

than a real First Amendment question
which I think again it's like everything

else we've been talking about is going
to pend on all the circumstances

how specific it is as a and
identified target.

I think a lot of the cases around
that area have come out with

more in the secondary schools

contacts because those schools can
be a little bit more heavy handed.

In in controlling students and

being concerned about that than
than we would as George attack.

But as a law enforcement issue I think
it would have to be pretty specific.

All right well thank you very much for
coming.