University had let Individuals for Justice in Palestine’s Oct. 7 ceremony after assess cites free speech issues
After the college banned the ceremony, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the University of Maryland Students for Justice in Palestine is continue holding its Oct. 7 ceremony.
The judge granted the activity for a preliminary injunction in favor of SJP mainly due to concerns about the First Amendment. On the anniversary of the invasion, the celebration will honor those who died in the Israeli-Gaza conflict.
Following the prosecutor’s decision, the University of Maryland assured the people that it would “abide by, the prosecutor’s decision, and may work with all authorized student administrators of events requested for October 7.”
Following the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Palestine Legal’s filing a lawsuit on behalf of Individuals for Justice in Palestine, the district judge issued a ruling challenging UMD’s decision to cancel the celebration.
In an email to The College Fix, Ahmad Kaki, legal associate with the CAIR Legal Defense Fund, stated in a statement that the complaint sought to “vindicate the First Amendment right of University of Maryland’s Kids for Justice in Palestine.”
The University of Maryland first made the right choice when it granted SJP permission to hold a celebration on October 7, according to Kaki.
The students wanted to calmly and politely mourn the 40, 000 lives that Israel has taken from Gaza since that day, according to him, and it is one year since Israel’s continued genocide there.
The college had first approved the occasion, which was to be organized by Muslim and Israeli students, but eventually banned all student-led emotive events on Oct. 7, citing security concerns.
The University of Maryland was contacted by The College Fix about the university’s decision to cancel the function and its free speech laws. In an e-mail speech, director Hafsa Siddiqi referred to the university’s open letter from Sept. 1, which cited security concerns despite no “immediate or active risk”.
The school justified the withdrawal “out of an abundance of caution” and just permitted university-sponsored activities that promote mirror on that day.
Further: U. Maryland SJP visitors’ victims ‘ function, plans one for Oct. 7
However, Kaki at the CAIR Legal Defense Fund argued that the school succumbed to “massive force from anti-Palestinian individuals and companies.”
” In doing so, the University violated the First Amendment”, he told The Fix.
Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the Knight First Amendment Institute, filed an amicus brief in support of the SJP’s petition. They argued that the school’s blanket restrictions violated the constitutional right of its students.
That’s definitely concerning, according to Graham Piro, a colleague at FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund, “anytime a school revokes agreement for a certain event on college and then doubles down by issuing a blanket ban on all emotive events on school on a single day.”
” Even if the University thinks it’s a blanket ban, it’s still content based…the University is giving into a heckler’s veto, and then it’s trying to cover up that fact by banning all events”, Piro said.
Piro also said this type of ban is not a “typical occurrence”. However, universities often modify events, such as the University of Vermont’s event featuring Mohammed el-Kurd, a Palestinian writer and poet. Following backlash and alleged” safety and security concerns,” the event was moved online.
The University of Maryland appears to have failed the test, according to Piro, “universities need to make bonafide efforts to take steps far beyond canceling an event.”
FIRE’s Vice President of Campus Advocacy Alex Morey also emphasized the significant free speech concerns raised by the university’s actions, calling them “plain and simple, unconstitutional”, according to an ACLU news release following the injunction.
According to Morey,” Courts do n’t take preliminary injunction requests lightly, but it was as obvious to the court as it was to our coalition that UMD’s blanket ban would have placed a serious and irreparable burden on student speech.”
Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, described the judge’s ruling as an “important victory for free speech” in a statement.
It’s unfortunate, though, that a federal lawsuit was required to reaffirm the First Amendment’s prohibition against censoring speech based on disagreement with its message or the harm it might inflict, according to Abdo.
MORE: National SJP wants’ extra credit’ for attending’ Palestine solidarity ‘ events
IMAGE: The Washington Examiner/Youtube
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.