With free speech, the where and the when can be as important as the why – The Denver Post

Questions about how public institutions handle free speech demonstrations and protests have been extra keen in Colorado of late. Following President Donald Trumps travel and refugee restrictions, protesters flocked to Denver International Airport. There they faced, ironically perhaps, the hard realities of trying to speak their minds in the secure environment created by the kind of terror fears fueling the presidents executive order.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago the University of Colorado grappled with how to handle protests over a speech by the all-around distasteful MiloYiannopoulos, andthe Boulder campus came out a winner after a mostly peaceful demonstration. A bill before the Colorado legislature seeks to send a clear message in support of free speech on college campuses that we are quick to appreciate, and we hope lawmakers find a way to make it law.

Both incidents are reminders that in the public arena, so often the moment matters as much as the message. Officials must balance that reality as they also wrangle legitimate concerns about their mission and the safety of public they serve.

DIA officials now face a lawsuit from some of the hundreds of protesters who relocated to the airports new transit plaza because they lacked a permit to gather at the terminal. Remarkably, we learn that DIAs rules require a seven-day process for obtaining such a permit.

DIA spokeswoman Stacey Stegman tells us that airport officials are reviewing their rules, and rightly so. We get it that the air-traveling public needs to be able to efficiently and safely get about. And were heartened by the fact city and airport officials found a space for attorneys to help those affected by Trumps (currently stalled) order. Going forward, we urge DIA to accommodate these kinds of demonstrations more reasonably and swiftly.

As for the proposed legislation directed at campuses: Much has been written and said and too often shouted about the problem of limiting contrarian views. We should all hope that our colleges and universities are places that foster diverse intellectual viewpoints, and not simply more erudite extensions of the echo-chamber.

State Sen. Tim Nevilles Senate Bill 62 seeks to make sure the free marketplace of ideas remains alive and well by eliminating free-speech zones. (For a draconian example of such zones, just think back on how our national political parties rely on caged demonstration areas far from the actual sites of their conventions.)

Neville, a Republican fromLittleton, seeks to require universities to more swiftly allow law-abiding students, professors and the university community to set up peaceful demonstrations where and when they like. His point is sound. When trying to protest a speaker or event on campus, for example, it hardly makes sense to require that demonstrators set up far from where the event is held.

As with airports, we encourage lawmakers to be mindful of the responsibilities university officials have to protect their mission and their students. CUattorney Patrick ORourke and Neville are hashing out revisions meant to make sure demonstrators cannot disrupt classrooms and lecture halls, or cause other disruptions, such as raising Cain outside dormitories past midnight.

We note that we have been impressed with CUs willingness to allow a diverse array of speakers on its campuses, and find the university system already accommodating in its standard practices. But Neville is right to send this message, and seek these protections.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Follow this link:
With free speech, the where and the when can be as important as the why - The Denver Post