WEIGH IN ON UNIVERSITY’S ‘ANTI-TRANS’ EVENTS

be offended,” Stewart said. “The first time it has a right to speak, it belongs to the speaker, and so if the university is going to accommodate speakers in general, they have to make that available to basically all speakers, regardless of their viewpoint.”

In an email sent to students on March 22, Dean Carla Panzella said “this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that controversial speakers visit Pitt’s campus.” Panzella added that she understands Pitt’s policy to “uphold the principle of protected speech will not feel sufficient to some in our community.”

“If you disagree with these speakers and you choose to act, then you can participate in a peaceful counter demonstration or engage in productive dialogue with others, or an organization you are part of can host a counter speaker,” Panzella said. “Your voices are powerful.”

Zach Greenberg, senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression who specializes in campus rights advocacy, said the University has an “obligation” to uphold the First Amendment.

“The University has an obligation to allow the speaker to come and allow the group to have its own right to express themselves through their speaker, and this is because the First Amendment encourages students to react to speakers using their own speech, their own events, their own dialogue, debate discussion, rather than through censorship and shutting down opposing speakers,” Greenberg said.

Greenberg added that hate speech lacks a clear definition.

“One of the issues with hateful speech is that it lacks a clear definition, what’s hateful to me not being hateful to you, and so generally offensive speech — hateful speech — is protected by the First Amendment. Universities have to allow the speech to occur on its college campus, on their campuses,” Greenberg said.

Stewart said both the presence of protests and allowing controversial speakers on campus are examples of Pitt upholding the First Amendment. His recommendation for students who are angry with the events is “combatting speech with speech.”

Despite the events being “protected speech” in line with the First Amendment, there are still some ways Pitt could potentially cancel the event, according to the experts.

Stewart said if the University canceled the event, it could potentially claim “qualified immunity,” which protects public officials and institutions from facing legal repercussions, even if courts rule that they violated the First Amendment.

“Often public officials will claim this doctrine called qualified immunity, which is where they say ‘we were unsure whether we were breaking the law or not by doing this, we thought we were acting in good faith, we relied on that advice of counsel,’” Stewart said. “So a court may say, ‘Yes, you violated the First Amendment rights, but no, you don’t owe them any money because you’re immune under this doctrine.’”

Pushinsky said the statute of limitations for an organization to sue a university for limiting free speech is about two years. Pushinsky added that if a university canceled an event due to the content of the speech, the plaintiff would have a “very good probability of winning.”

Pushinsky said there are two things that are commonly considered when determining the regulation of speech in a public institution.

“Advocacy of violence by itself is protected by the First Amendment — what is not protected is advocacy of or incitement designed to produce imminent, lawless action,” Pushinsky said. “Unless they say something to the effect of ‘when you leave here today, pick up a bat and go bash someone’s head, and here’s the bat to do it with,’ the speech in the events is considered protected speech.” we accept panther funds & dining dollars &

Pushinsky said there are a couple repercussions for violating free speech rules including injunctive relief — where the University would have to provide a future date for the speech to take place — or monetary compensation. Pushinsky added that the more substantial financial repercussions involve paying the opposing side’s lawyer fees.

While the experts agreed that the University is upholding its duty as an academic institution to allow free speech and discourse, Ledewitz said the University’s statements seem a “bit hypocritical in hiding behind the First Amendment,” and advised that the University be up front about their judgment in allowing the speakers on campus.

“If they are giving the impression that they’re legally powerless to act, they’re being hypocritical, and they should defend robust speech, not as a legal matter, but as a desirable goal for a university,” Ledewitz said.

Michael Knowles and Brad Polumbo, a “libertarian-conservative journalist” debated the question “Should transgenderism be regulated by law?” Tuesday evening in the O’Hara Student Center. Students and community members held two protests on Tuesday. Pitt police issued an emergency alert for a “public safety emergency” at the later protest outside O’Hara.