The Threat of Policy

State-level legislation attempting to regulate free expression and speech is on the rise — and has been for years. Last year in Arizona, the ACLU testified on 70 bills in committee hearings to make sure Constitutional rights were protected, according to its recap of 2025. 

Among the bills they fought against was HB 2880, which Gov. Hobbs signed into law. This bill allows public universities to prohibit encampments on campus. 

I covered the Pro-Palestine encampments at ASU in 2024, and what I reported on was students who were using their voice on public property. 

Encampments and long-term protests bring attention to a cause and giving universities free reign on restricting these kinds of protests could lead to content-based regulations. 

Content-based regulations are those that restrict speech “because of disagreement with the message [the speech] conveys.” Without clear lines — content-neutral restriction — we risk watching freedom of expression being stripped away based on what your expression is. 

I’m one of many journalists who feel concerned over ongoing First Amendment restrictions. A Pew Research Center study showed 57% of journalists “say they are extremely or very concerned” about restrictions on press freedom. 

As we watch more states create state-level legislation that narrows pieces of the First Amendment, we are actively watching the Constitution's principles be abandoned.

While policy can be an aid in free speech, it can’t be the end-all-be-all. The courts need to continue upholding the Constitution and uphold the rulings that have guided the First Amendment in the past. 

During our module this week, there were examples that showed the court needs to monitor and protect the people from some of the policies that try to become law. 

In Butler v. Michigan the question of restricting materials was present — a question many are still trying to answer today. In this case, we saw the court rule in favor of Butler after finding Michigan was restricting content. 

Butler sold a book with profanity to an adult and the case went to the Supreme Court because Michigan had “unduly restricted the freedom of speech” based on one judge’s opinion. 

Without constantly checking the state of policy, it quickly over-regulates — like in the Butler v. Michigan and the Gooding v. Wilson case. 

In the Gooding v. Wilson case, the Supreme Court ruled Georgia had an unconstitutional statute that over regulated words “violent” speech. 

The case ruled that “fighting words” are not protected under the First Amendment, but Georgia can’t also regulate “opprobrious” and “abusive” words/phrases.