‘Unconstitutional on its face’
SA Sedition Act called an illegal breach of free speech by ACLU, legal experts
By Isral DeBruin and Jonathan Anderson
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
“Anyone who doesn’t see there’s a problem with the Sedition Act shouldn’t be in government, or student government.”
- Adam Goldstein, attorney for the SPLC
According to legal experts, the SA Sedition Act would have been an unconstitutional and illegal stifling of free speech had it become law.
The act was vetoed two days after it was passed by the Student Association (SA) Senate on Feb. 10 with a 10-7 vote. A veto override failed unanimously at last night’s SA meeting.
One senator abstained from the vote, saying because she was absent from the previous meeting she felt unable to make an educated decision about the bill.
The act would have allowed 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 said, “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.”
The ACLU’s condemnation of the Sedition Act came just days after its author, Sen. Joseph Ohler, SA academic affairs director, said he anticipated “no negative fallout” from the passage of the bill.
Ohler later said he thought an override of the veto was “winnable.” SA President Robert Grover agreed that there was a chance of an override but called the bill “crazy.”
Ohler, did not attend last night’s meeting when the veto override failed due to inclement weather conditions.
Legal experts speak out
Had the act become law, David Pritchard, a UWM media law professor, said there is no question it would have been 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 U.S. 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 can’t sue for libel in the United States.
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, said the issue concerned 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 originally 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 have attempted to pursue “civil relief” under the bill, the act would have called for the allocation of money from private funds if no other funding mechanism were 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 what he called 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 Sens. 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 Sen. 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. Kristopeit said in an e-mail to the Post that he would not withdraw his sponsorship of the bill for the sake of “political expediency,” however he said he planned to vote against a veto override. The senator said the legislation was not meant to deny student rights, but to protect those of the SA.
“Personally, I highly respect, and support, the rights of reporters and the press – but, in the debate surrounding this legislation, I have heard virtually nothing about the rights of the Student Association,” Kristopeit said.
Kristopeit went on to criticize the Post for recently “abusing” its First Amendment Rights. 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, said he questioned 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.
At last night’s SA meeting, before the act was shot down, Grover voiced his opposition to the legislation.
“It is not the direction that we want to be taking the Student Association,” Grover said.
Ohler said in an e-mail sent to the Post after the meeting that he believed the media attention the Sedition Act received had sufficiently raised awareness about the topic of responsible communication. Therefore, he said, he will not propose similar legislation again.
> Comments
Jon Tingley on Feb 18, 2008 at 07:21 AM:
Is this surprising at all? The SA is a joke. The only reason people pay attention to them anymore is because we ask the question, "what could they possibly do next?" The SA is certainly bordering on a hate-mongering institution and has absolutely no connection to the students it represents and STEALS money from.
When will UWM students catch a break?
Avery Smith on Feb 18, 2008 at 08:53 AM:
LOL! The disgraced drama queen speaks!
Tingley, maybe you should run for VP and resign again because the will of the Senate doesn't match your personal views.
DRAMA QUEEN!
Black Panther UWM on Feb 18, 2008 at 03:30 PM:
I, for one, think that it's a bad idea for SA members to be masquerading as former members of the basketball team. Obviously, it is a member of the SA because only someone currently in SA would take offense to Tingley slamming them.
Daniel V. Bahr on Feb 18, 2008 at 07:15 PM:
Well Jon,
Thats nice but I (we) just don't care what you think. I am just glad you are gone.
BTW all the "stealing of students money" occurred while you were Vice President of SA.
Not that you had any chance to stop it because you are incompetent.
Daniel V. Bahr
Black Panther UWM on Feb 18, 2008 at 09:59 PM:
Well, can't say this is really a great forum. Maybe this argument should be done in a public forum...in the ballroom, perhaps? Spaights Plaza (when it's warmer)?
You may not agree with Bahr or Tingley, but at least they throw their names out there. I wish the person behind the "Avery Smith" pseudonym would come out.
I don't know of the majority of SA's dealings this past semester, but I do know a couple. For instance, eliminating the separation of powers and allowing people to participate in both the senate and the executive branch of student government was a joke.
You wonder why students don't want to vote -- they can't tell who is full of it and who isn't.
Man, I hope Carlo Albano decides to run again. I'd help him campaign.
RS on Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11 PM:
Ill be the incumbent party hopes he runs again also.
Can you say ROAD KILL.
Ross Corbett on Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM:
We have the right of free speech in this country so the people in power can't control what other people say, the hardest part of free speech is putting up with the things that people say that you do not agree with, the SA obviously does not get that and they need a wake up call, I find it sick that they are trying to hinder anyones free speech on campus.
Allyson K. Wartick on Feb 19, 2008 at 07:56 AM:
I don't agree with censorship, however, I couldn't agree more with Senator Kristopeit's stance on this by sponsoring the bill and then voting against it.
Where do you draw the line between personal attacks and just defacing an organization in general? You may say that there is no line, because the people in the organization are the ones who give it a bad name, but then shouldn't they be branded more specifically than just targeting the organization at large?
Shouldn't a problem be rooted out at the source and not just attacked blindly as a whole? Perhaps there are issues that people want to take up with specific MEMBERS of SA, but just because you have policy issues with those individuals does not mean that the organization as a whole should be so defamed.
I agree with Tyler wholly that free speech is the most important and needs to be protected here, but also think about how badly SA is represented to the campus as well. People like to blame SA at large, rather than targeting the specific problem most of the time. Why would anyone want to get involved with an organization like SA, when all they hear about it are the negatives? Surely students don't want to be a part of something that is looked upon with such disdain by our University's main newspaper.
Target the people, not the organization. We need people in our student government, and we need students to be interested and want to get involved. You will never change this organization if all you do is continue to convince people that it is an evil at large.
Random on Feb 19, 2008 at 08:21 AM:
Jon you are the sorriest excuse for a student leader there ever was! Crawl back in the hole you came out of--and stay in there for a little longer this time!
Annonymous on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM:
I couldn't agree with Allyson more. I believe that it is unfair to judge an entire group based on the actions of certain members. The problem arises when the vast majority of a group support something or act in a certain way. When that is the case, most people find it easier to criticize an organization as a whole than naming off 90% of the members involved individually and criticizing them. Criticizing the organization as a whole also does not take into account the past and future members of the organization that may act and be different.
Perhaps a better compromising thing to say would be: "The large majority, but not all, of those in the 2007-2008 Student Association are negatively impacting the students of UWM and the university as a whole through their actions that both affect and become policy."
NS on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM:
Dear SA,
The fact that this act was ever even on the table and the reactions to Tingley's initial comment prove what everyone who has ever had to deal with you or endure one of your meetings already knew: You are a collective of petty, hate-mongering, self-serving hacks. You don't give any thought to the needs of the people you "represent." In a sense, I suppose that means that you are all well on the way to being career politicians, and like true politicians, you can all take solace (and it’s apparent that all of you do) in the fact that the public is, in general, too apathetic to see you for what you really are.
If the student body at large did take an interest in your actions, there is no doubt that the public outcry for the dismantling of the SA would be more than you could ever attempt to censor. Of course, I don't blame the students for their lack of outrage. They have enough on their minds without worrying about every bit of filth that spews from your mouths, pens, asses and wherever else you manage to find policy tucked away.
Blatant disregard for financial responsibility, child-like legislation aimed at insulting co-workers (an act abbreviated JPO comes to mind), members creating jobs to get their friends on SA payroll, theft and slander are just a few of the many high crimes this student can think of. Watching you all wallow happily in your own shit is both enthralling and repulsive at the same time.
It’s comforting to think that many of your high-ranking officers will soon graduate (hope they’ve found a loophole to keep themselves on the payroll!) and allow entry to a fresh batch of student politicians. In a perfect world this would mean new ideas and an end to corruption, greed, inane squabbling and the like. Unfortunately, as has been proven time and time again, these individuals are more likely to be twisted and manipulated until they are functioning cogs of the SA’s hate machine.
I don’t expect any of you to give a moment of thought to these words. You’ve created a pretty good racket (the most appropriate word to describe what the SA is) by not listening to my fellow students and me, so why start now? But this attempt to hush your opposition and lull the people who elected you into a false sense of security will hopefully not go unnoticed. I wish those who supported this act nothing but the worst in any political endeavor they take up in the future.
John Kerry on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM:
Allyson K. Wartick: "I couldn't agree more with Senator Kristopeit's stance on this by sponsoring the bill and then voting against it."
Now Allyson, don't tell you support flip-flopping.
Bill Clinton on Feb 20, 2008 at 02:11 PM:
This is a perfect example of how secluded and ignorant the 10 senators are (who voted in support of the Sedition Act) and the SA officials (paid) who are supervising and mentoring these younger minds are even more to blame. Dan Bahr congratulations on being appointed as INDEPENDENT Elections Commissioner.
Bill Clinton on Feb 20, 2008 at 02:11 PM:
This is a perfect example of how secluded and ignorant the 10 senators are (who voted in support of the Sedition Act) and the SA officials (paid) who are supervising and mentoring these younger minds are even more to blame. Dan Bahr congratulations on being appointed as INDEPENDENT Elections Commissioner.
Daniel V. Bahr on Feb 20, 2008 at 06:32 PM:
Thanks Bill,
I am SO proud of the mentoring I have done as Speaker and I do in fact look forward to acting independently this spring.
Best,
Daniel V. Bahr
AJ Piwarun on Feb 20, 2008 at 07:54 PM:
I would also like to echo the congratulations to Dan Bahr on becoming the IEC. I look forward to clean and fair elections.
Has-Been SA-er from Way Back on Feb 21, 2008 at 05:07 PM:
So it was written with the best intent, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but at least this perdition is sedition-free!
bah on Feb 21, 2008 at 05:09 PM:
enjoy it whil it lasts cuz ill use my magic bongo drums to steal votes!!!
Allyson K. Wartick on Feb 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM:
John Kerry;
Supporting a bill hardly means that I will be voting for it. Just because I think everyone's legislation deserves to be heard does not mean that I have to vote for it. I can sponsor if, when, and however I choose to, and I don't have to apologize for it. I've already laid out quite clearly where I stand on this I think, but just because a bill is sponsored does not mean that it is supported. I think it was written with the best of intentions to watch out for the organization at large as I explained above.
I too, couldn't be more excited that Dan Bahr is going to be our elections commissioner. I am certain that he's going to do an awesome job!
Thanks for the warm wishes NS... "I wish those who supported this act nothing but the worst in any political endeavor they take up in the future." But I raelly don't think I need em.
Allyson on Feb 22, 2008 at 06:15 AM:
Just realized I needed to make a correction because that first paragraph was a little confusing...
Sponsoring a bill doesn't mean that I'm bound by that sponsorship to vote for it... a bill can be sponsored yet voted against. There were some flaws in the legislation presented, but for the millionth time I do agree with the intent that was there, which was to protect the image of the SA at large, just not what the legislation actually entailed.
It always interests me how the people who are usually willing to be the most critical of SA are the ones who refuse to get involved and run. I've not seen any of these editorial writers at any of the senate meetings at the podium running for election.
It's really easy to criticize when you're not involved, isn't it?
Hmm on Feb 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM:
Allyson, you say that you agree with the intent of the bill, with the intent being to protect the image of the SA. Seeing that this bill is obviously unconstiutional, what do you think would be legal means of "protecting the image of SA?"
Allyson K. Wartick on Feb 22, 2008 at 01:03 PM:
I think there needs to be more balance in the post, and that certainly can't be achieved by censoring them, but when they're publishing articles about me, AJ, and Ty based on completely anonymous sources and not much homework beforehand... I think that The Post needs to re-evaluate how they implement some of their practices.
There are good things coming out of SA, but you would never know it the way we're represented.