SPLC

The court upheld an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the policy, paving the way for it to be debated in court to determine whether it goes too far in prohibiting students from expressing themselves.

The LACCD policy, described by the prosecutor as "having a chilling effect on speech,"became a topic of debate after a student at Los Angeles Community College, Jonathan Lopez, was prohibited from finishing a speaking assignment in his public speaking class. According to court documents, he was speaking on his religious views when his professor, John Matteson, cut him off and refused to allow him to finish his remarks.

"Matteson was operating pursuant to the college district's speech code, which prohibited students from engaging in offensive speech," David Hacker, Lopez's attorney, said. "It told students to self-censor their speech if they thought it might offend somebody, which is really chilling to First Amendment rights of students on campus."

The policy in question prohibits speech on campus that could create an "intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."

Hacker said the ruling of the case could have implications for speech codes all across California. The LACC based their policy on legislation enacted by the state legislature, which provided suggested language for campus speech codes. The legislation, however, did not make it mandatory to adopt that language.

Lopez was censored on the grounds that his speech violated the school's dated speech code, which had been updated in 2007, but which was still posted online. Although the code was updated, even the new version has some language which Lopez's lawyer said is troubling.

"Mr. Lopez was concerned. After what happened to him, he wanted to ensure that he would be able to speak freely and express his religious opinions on campus,"Hacker said. "What matters is that the policy exists and that students have to comply with it or they could be subject to punishment."

The United States District Court for the Central District of California, which upheld the injunction, said in its court order that a rule is not made any more constitutional because similar language appears in other regulations.

"The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools,"the order said, quoting previous court decisions.

Kevin Jeter, in-house counsel for the LACCD, said the district is pursuing the case because the wording in its speech code was based on California law. The debate is about the constitutionality of the speech code suggested by the state legislature, he said.

"It has to do with whether or not the district was right in following the law,"Jeter said. "The question is; 'can you be sued for doing what the law tells you to do?' I think the fundamental answer is no ... even if the law is wrong."

Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center, said the fact that other organizations, even government organizations, enforce a code does not mean it is constitutional or that it should be enforced in schools.

"This touches a nerve of conservative community members," Goldstein said. "There's a perception that the university is hostile to religious discussion -- and this affirms that. It makes people look bad."

In addition to cutting Lopez off, Matteson called Lopez a "fascist bastard,"and wrote on his grading sheet for the speaking assignment that Lopez should "ask God what your grade is."