The Alarming Erosion of Free Speech: FCC’s Troubling Actions and the Unconstitutional Heckler’s Veto (Opinion)

FREDERICK, MD News (11/10/2023) – In a recent incident at Frederick Community College (FCC), a protester was not only denied his constitutional right to free speech in a public location, but criminally charged by Frederick Police after being told that he was not breaking any laws.

The recent events at FCC, involving Shaun Porter, have sparked a crucial conversation about the state of our constitutional values, specifically the right to free speech. The incident, framed as a refusal to leave the campus grounds upon request, goes beyond an individual dispute and reveals a concerning pattern of selective enforcement, endangering the core principles of democracy.

Of course, I’ve written about Shaun Porter before, and how I disagree with his methods. However, just because I disagree with someone does not mean I have a right to stop them from expressing them in public. And it certainly doesn’t give the government that right.

The current situation involving Shaun Porter at Frederick Community College can be traced back to an earlier incident involving Pastor Jaymz of “Mount Airy For Jesus.” When Pastor Jaymz visited the campus to engage with students and used an amplification device to express his views, campus security intervened, asserting that his presence was causing a disturbance. In response to their instructions, Pastor Jaymz peacefully left the campus without incident after a brief interaction. This incident raises questions about the consistent application of policies related to free speech and amplification devices on campus, setting the stage for subsequent events and contributing to the broader conversation about the protection of expressive rights at Frederick Community College.

At the heart of this controversy is the charge against Shaun Porter for allegedly refusing to leave FCC premises. While the details suggest a clash between Porter’s expressive rights and the administration’s efforts to maintain order, a deeper analysis uncovers the peril of selective law enforcement and its potential consequences for free speech.

Central to this narrative is the concept of a “heckler’s veto,” a term that emphasizes the delicate balance between the right to protest and the protection of dissenting voices. The heckler’s veto occurs when the government, in this case, FCC and Frederick Police, allows disruptive counter-protesters to drown out a speaker’s message, effectively silencing them. This not only infringes on the right to free speech but also raises serious constitutional concerns.

The First Amendment protects individuals from government action that chills or punishes free speech. In the case of a heckler’s veto, the government becomes complicit in suppressing speech by permitting disruptive individuals to drown out a speaker’s message. By allowing the heckler’s veto to unfold, FCC not only failed to protect Porter’s right to free speech but also potentially violated constitutional principles.

Equally disconcerting is the attempt to charge Porter with trespassing, a charge that appears dubious given the circumstances. If Porter was never explicitly told to leave FCC, the legal basis for trespassing becomes questionable at best. The selective targeting of a specific individual for expressing dissenting views raises concerns about whether such actions are politically motivated, undermining the principles of democracy.

The actions of Frederick Police and FCC Public Safety in this matter further warrant scrutiny. Allegations of selective enforcement and a failure to address disruptive behavior from counter-protesters underscore the potential bias within these institutions. When law enforcement agencies, entrusted with upholding justice, appear to favor certain political viewpoints, it erodes public trust and jeopardizes the foundation of a just society.

As the editor of a news organization, it is deeply troubling to witness a place of higher education, an institution responsible for teaching history and justice, participate in actions that raise serious constitutional concerns. The heckler’s veto, when allowed to occur, represents a breach of the fundamental principles upon which our democracy was built.

In an era of heightened polarization, fostering an environment that encourages open dialogue and embraces diverse perspectives is paramount. If FCC is to fulfill its role as a place of learning, it must recognize the importance of protecting the rights of all individuals, even when their opinions may challenge the status quo. The current situation at FCC demands reflection, accountability, and a collective commitment to upholding the principles upon which our democracy was built.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President and Managing Editor. Many thanks to Levi Trumbull for his continued coverage and providing the charging documents in this case.