“There is nothing more destructive of democratic government than the power in the hands of the government to stifle opposition and silence dissent by lawsuits.” –Chris Ahmuty, executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin

According to legal experts, the SA Sedition Act, which passed at the Feb. 10 Student Association (SA) Senate meeting, would be an unconstitutional and illegal stifling of free speech should it become law.

The act would allow the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee SA to issue “cease and desist orders” to parties disseminating what it believed to be libelous or slanderous communication. If an order were not obeyed, the act goes on, “civil relief” in the form of a lawsuit would be sought.

Chris Ahmuty, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, condemned the Sedition Act.

“It is distressing that a university governance group (the SA) would try to claim a right to censor speech in the guise of prosecuting libel and slander,” Ahmuty said. “There is nothing more destructive of democratic government than the power in the hands of the government to stifle opposition and silence dissent by lawsuits.”

After the act passed the Senate 10-7 with three abstentions, SA President Robert Grover vetoed the act on Tuesday, calling it “crazy,” however the SA Senate will vote to override that veto on Sunday. Grover said an override “could happen.”

Joseph Ohler, author of the Sedition Act and SA Academic Affairs Director, said he’s been carefully considering the odds of accumulating a 2/3 Senate majority, the amount required to successfully overturn Grover’s veto. “I would say that there is about a third of a chance,” Ohler said. “It is winnable.”

In a press release Thursday, the ACLU of Wisconsin and the ACLU Student Alliance at UWM urged the Student Senate to uphold the veto.

Legal experts speak out

If the override is successful and the act becomes law, David Pritchard, a UWM media law professor, said there is no question it would be ruled unconstitutional.

“The so-called ‘Sedition Act’ is unconstitutional on its face,” Pritchard said. “Any state or federal judge in Wisconsin would declare the “sedition act” to be unconstitutional in a heartbeat.”

Mark Zoromski, another UWM media law professor, said he agreed with Pritchard’s statements.

Pritchard pointed to a landmark United States Supreme Court case in explaining the flaws of the Sedition Act. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), Pritchard said, established that units of government couldn’t sue for libel in the U.S. Furthermore, the Sullivan case’s decision states that the original Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, the SA Sedition Act’s namesake, would have been ruled unconstitutional had they ever been brought to court.

“Under American law, units of government cannot be libeled,” Pritchard explained. “One of the flaws of the ‘Sedition Act’ is that it apparently can be activated only by ‘libelous or slanderous communications regarding the SA,’” Pritchard continued, quoting the act. “But the SA as an organization can’t be libeled.”

Ahmuty agreed and said, “Government bodies cannot sue for libel or slander for good reason.”

Jennifer Peterson, legal counsel for the UWM Post and attorney specializing in media law at LaFollette, Godfrey and Kahn in Madison says the issue concerns basic democratic principles.

“I think it’s unfortunate that student leaders don’t want to encourage robust discourse on campus," Peterson said. "Your student leadership should be fostering discussion about issues, not trying to quash people’s views or stifle discussion of various issues including student government acts. They should be welcoming commentary from their constituents.”

While SA President Grover accused the Post of poor filtering practices and “shoddy journalism,” he said he agreed that the Sedition Act was inappropriate and said he was disappointed that it passed the Senate.

“We need to make sure that we never stifle any speech on campus, whether it be stuff we like to hear or stuff we don’t like to hear,” Grover said.

Funding a libel suit

Should the SA attempt to pursue “civil relief,” the act calls for the allocation of money from private funds if no other funding mechanism is available. When Ohler was asked about this, he said if the SA wasn’t able to obtain pro bono representation, “student university fees allocated by the Senate Finance Committee” would be used.

According to Tom McGinnity, UWM assistant dean of students, the SA would need to get express permission from the Wisconsin Governor to use funding in this way.

“UW System Policy F50 prohibits the use of segregated fees for the ‘cost of legal services except where the governor has approved hiring an attorney to provide student legal services at an institution,’” McGinnity said, quoting UW policy.

Act sponsors withdraw support

Ohler said the Sedition Act was his idea and that he wrote it “in isolation” in response to libelous e-mails sent through student organization e-mail reflectors last semester as well as two UWM Post articles about an underground student political group called Students for Responsible Government (SRG).

After the act was finished, Ohler gave it a “flashy” name and took it to the Senate leadership for support.

“I got some big-name sponsors,” Ohler said of those who had signed on to support the Sedition Act. “I was actually kind of flattered at how quickly some of our senate leadership took to it.”

The big-name sponsors Ohler referenced were A.J. Piwarun, Tyler Draheim and Tyler Kristopeit. Piwarun is the President of SRG and Draheim is the Vice President. During last Sunday’s Senate meeting, Draheim praised the act.

“This is great legislation,” Draheim said. “Joe wrote it with the best intent.” Piwarun said he agreed.

“I agree with Senator Draheim,” Piwarun said. “If certain newspapers print lies about Student Association members and it’s slander, this is a matter to combat that.”

Later in the week, though, Piwarun and Draheim said in e-mails to the Post that they were withdrawing their support of the act.

Draheim thanked Grover for vetoing the bill and encouraged fellow senators not to stifle free speech.

“I am not overly familiar with media law or with the history of similar bills in congress,” Draheim said, “but when I was made aware that this would be a breach of rights, I quickly changed my tune. I am no longer a supporter of this legislation.”

Piwarun said he thought the intent of the act was valid but the wording was errant.

Grover defended the author and sponsors of the act and said they meant well.

“I don’t want to demonize the people that pushed it through because I don’t think they had bad intentions when they authored it,” Grover said.

Adam Goldstein, an attorney for the Student Press Law Center, questions the support that helped the act initially pass the Senate.

“Anyone who doesn’t see there’s a problem with the Sedition Act shouldn’t be in government, or student government,” said Goldstein in a telephone interview from his office in Arlington, Va.

What’s next

The Student Association is set to take up veto override proceedings at the SA Senate meeting on Sunday, with Ohler expected to lead the charge. Although President Grover has no direct influence in the override vote, he said he stands by his veto.

“It is not the direction that we want to be taking the Student Association,” Grover said.

The SA Senate meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Sunday in the Union Ballroom West.

> Comments