Community, students and parents clash over freedom of speech

Words were fired back and forth between anti-abortion protesters and Olympic College students and community members on Oct. 7.

Repulsed by the graphic content of signs from the Kitsap Anti-Choice Project, students responded by making signs of their own and attempted to expel the group from campus.

The response to the content of the protesters message has raised questions about the First Amendment at OC. Questions regarding who has the right to free speech at OC; if there are any limits to what can be said or displayed; by what methods it is acceptable to present a message and if there are any restrictions to where protests can occur have arisen.

According to OC President David Mitchell, everybody at the college is granted free speech.

OC is an open campus and non-students are not restricted in First Amendment rights.

“Our assistant attorney general advises that anti-abortion protester actions are protected under the First Amendment,” said Mitchell.

A number of students feel exposure to the gory images displayed on the signs constitute harassment under OC guidelines, as they are insensitive to students with past trauma and could potentially impair someone’s ability to receive an education.

“Provoking an emotional reaction which creates a series of discontent,” said student Mark McConnell. “When you have this kind of discontent on the campus you are also interfering with other people’s ability to get an education.”

According to Mitchell, OC policy states that people are not to engage in things disruptive to the educational environment. Since free speech and peaceful protests are protected under the First Amendment, attempts to interfere with, and stop, such displays would be considered disruptive.

According to Vice President of Student Services Richard MacLennan, harassment is defined as something deliberately threatening or intimidating, passive speech activity is exempt from the term.

“With the abortion issue of course you don’t like to see people getting upset to the point they are saying things that could possibly cause trouble,” said MacLennan. “Here are two very different ways of seeing the world and they are coming into conflict, this is a place where you should be able to have those kinds of discussions.”

Regulations have been put in place for protesters.
According to MacLennan, issues are dealt with on a basis of time, place and manner, but never on content.

MacLennan said such regulations exist only to keep volume at a non disrupting level, keep building entrances from being blocked, make sure foot traffic does not become congested and manage other logistical issues.

Another source of strife in regard to the protesters has come from the close relative proximity of the OC childcare facilities to protest sites. Students and parents alike have voiced discontent at having children exposed to the protesters graphic signs.

“I don’t agree with it at all,” said student Jonathan Terry. “I have four children and they are waking up in the middle of the night because they see some bloody figure on a photo.”
According to Mitchell, having a daycare on campus does not alter standard FirstAmendment procedure in the college environment.

Themain protester, Michael Ferman, has been asked to keep his protests away from childcare areas, according to MacLennan.

“I don’t think it makes any difference that there is a place for children on campus,” said MacLennan. “What would make a difference is how accessible we made that speech activity to children.”

In the past, a common response to First Amendment controversy has been to implement a free speech zone, which is a pocket of space on campus that all protests and controversial speech is relegated to.

According to MacLennan, in the late 1990’s a similar controversy regarding anti-abortion protesters displaying graphic images occurred on campus. To keep images away from children, administrators appointed the Hyde Park region of campus to be a free speech zone.

Hyde Park was never fully recognized as a free speech zone and subsequently was not used as one. Across the nation, free speech zones were being called into question.
In 2004, a Texas district court judge ruled that free speech zones at Texas Tech University were unconstitutional.

Subsequent court rulings also decided that speech could not be contained to certain areas in a public setting.

Taking action of their own

A club has been born out of the anti-abortion protest controversy. According to its mission statement, the Students for Peaceful Demonstration club seeks to “encourage peaceful demonstration and report all legal and campus violations at Olympic College.”
 

“Basically we want to establish a group that will allow Olympic College to have demonstrators come on campus and conduct themselves,” said club member Brandon Czuprynski. “But it’s a governing body to have them come on campus and conduct that peacefully. “
 

Yet to be chartered, the future of the club is currently unknown because of uncertainties with its authoritative desires. A decision is expected to be reached in less than two weeks.
 

“The purpose of clubs is to serve the student body and to really involve the student body in the campus,” said student body president Jonathan Bowers. “We didn’t want to stop them from being a club but we didn’t want to get ourselves trouble by chartering a club we couldn’t actually charter.”

Forum on the First Amendment

An open forum on free speech is being held Wednesday. Aiming to give students the opportunity to voice and discuss all opinions, the forum will play a role in the understanding and application of free speech in OC’s immediate future.
 

“Part of being in society costs that you are going to be exposed to diverse ideas,” said MacLennan. “Some that you completely philosophically disagree with. That’s what the First Amendment protects. For me, being part of a learning community, that’s exactly what we want to happen. We want your ideas and values to be held up in question.”