NOTE: The article excerpted on this page is from an outside publication and is posted on FIRE's website because it references FIRE's work. The viewpoints expressed in this article do not necessarily represent FIRE's positions.

New Jersey Legislators Get a Chance to Fix the First Amendment Problems With Their Anti-Bullying Law

By February 3, 2012

The law, which requires colleges to ban "harassment, intimidation and bullying," defines harassment to include "a single incident" that "substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the institution or the rights of other students" and "has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students" or "will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student." That definition of student-on-student harassment, FIRE notes, is substantially broader than the one the Supreme Court has said is consistent with the First Amendment in the context of Title IX lawsuits: conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." New Jersey's law also seems inconsistent with two rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (where New Jersey is located). In 2008 the 3rd Circuit struck down Temple University's regulations aimed at "generalized sexist remarks and behavior," saying the policy "provides no shelter for core protected speech." In 2010 the appeals court rejectedthe University of the Virgin Islands' ban on conduct that causes "emotional distress," noting that "every time a student speaks, she risks causing another student emotional distress." FIRE argues that "New Jersey has in effect sanctioned the 'heckler's veto,'" since anyone who claims to be insulted, demeaned, or emotionally harmed by another student's speech can make a fuss about it, thereby generating the disruption that triggers punishment...