College campus protesters should speak freely but not trample over other people's rights

The First Amendment isn’t a blank check allowing Americans to do or say whatever we want.

Clearly, some of America’s most esteemed higher education institutions have tragically failed to educate students on what is and isn’t protected speech.

Our nation is at a crossroads where we must uphold both the First Amendment and the rule of law as peaceably as possible.

As an opinion columnist, my speech is anything but neutral. I share my perspective in order to provoke thoughts and conversations. From the look of my inbox, some of you clearly disagree with my perspective.

I appreciate both the encouragement and criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow. I’ve long believed that the answer to speech I oppose is more speech.

Government-imposed silence is the death-knell of liberty.

We need to be able to disagree peacefully with others

The antisemitic speech I’m seeing on college campuses is deeply wrong and destructive. As a Christian, my savior is from the house and line of King David.

The promises God made to Abraham are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. While that doesn’t mean I must uniformly support every action by the modern nation of Israel, I unmistakably share a common spiritual ancestry with the Jews of today. As such, I ardently oppose calls for their extermination or any suggestion that they have no right or stake in their ancestral homeland.

My ability to share such a perspective depends heavily on people who disagree with me defending my right to express such views.

That is the lens through which we must view the current protests across our nation.

Another view by Cameron Smith: Trump backs states' rights on abortion and protects his electoral prospects and the unborn

COLUMBIA Act is well-intentioned government overreach

Even the most well-intentioned government responses to speech we oppose run afoul of this critical principle.

For example, Reps. Ritchie Torres, D-New York, and Mike Lawler, R-New York, have introduced the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act – or COLUMBIA Act.

The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Education to send a third party “antisemitism monitor” to college campuses to evaluate "the progress that a college or university has made toward combating antisemitism" as a condition for receiving federal funding.

While we should indeed combat antisemitism, the COLUMBIA Act sets the blueprint for government viewpoint monitoring on college campuses.

The laws we create today against speech we oppose would undoubtedly be used to silence our own perspectives tomorrow. As much as I view these protests against Israel as indicative of an educated elite unmoored from reality, they have a constitutional right to be wrong.

Students do not have a right to commandeer school buildings

But that right has limits.

Protesters do not have a right to physically attack anyone, including those recording them. They may not incite violence.

True threats and intimidation aren't protected speech. Hecklers don’t have a right to substantially disrupt events or physically prevent someone else from speaking. In the college context, students may not commandeer buildings and spaces for as long as they desire.

Another view: As a Vanderbilt alum, I am angry, but not surprised, about the recent student expulsions

Consider examples in a different context. I don’t have a right to enter a performance of “Hamilton” and loudly deliver my preferred comedic monologue.

I can’t set up an encampment at the DMV to protest long lines and indefinitely deny others access to government services.

The Supreme Court has, time and again, recognized that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are consistent with the First Amendment.

What we’re seeing on college campuses is a different animal entirely. When Jews are denied access to schools where they work or study because their safety cannot be assured, viewpoints have turned into far more sinister behavior.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool that comes with a price

Those who engage in acts of violence or real threats should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Other laws like trespass must be enforced as well. Law enforcement shouldn’t brutalize people protesting in tents, but they do have legal authority to remove them. So many of the issues and shocking videos come from non-compliant protestors forcing police to physically remove them.

Some Americans believe that “occupy” style protests don’t hurt anyone.

Our laws are the minimum behavioral baselines established through our democratic processes. When and where our opinions clash, the law must prevail. I don’t love a 70 m.p.h. speed limit. Arguing to a state trooper that my speeding didn’t hurt anyone won’t and shouldn’t get me out of a ticket.

I respect those willing to engage in civil disobedience. They understand that their conduct violates the law. They aren’t fighting law enforcement. They pay the consequences for their behavior in the hope that it leads to changes in the law.

Civil disobedience remains such a powerful tool for change precisely because the price it demands is high. Without prosecution, it is simply lawlessness.

We need to understand why, where, and when we protect speech, and we must do a better job of teaching it to the next generation. We won’t always like what we hear, but we must support the Constitution that protects it and the laws which maintain order in our campuses, communities, and nation.

USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney who worked for conservative Republicans. He and his wife Justine are raising three boys in Nolensville, Tennessee. Direct outrage or agreement to [email protected] or @DCameronSmith on X, formerly known as Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to [email protected].

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Columbia protests: Free speech goes both ways and comes with limits