Does Free Speech have a price tag at Temple University? February 1
Back in October, I applauded the decision that allowed Temple University Purpose to bring Geert Wilders to Temple to speak to students as a victory for the first amendment. Today, a rather ugly new development has surfaced. Mike Adams:
Geert Wilders came to Temple University on October 20, 2009. Wilders was invited in the wake of a controversy surrounding his film “Fitna” which was released in 2008. The film was controversial because it features passages of the Koran interspersed with scenes of violence on the part of Muslims. The movie was shown during the presentation at Temple. Extra security was provided and there was no disturbance.
On December 3, Temple University Purpose (TUP) – the group that hosted Wilders -was surprised with a bill from Temple for $800 for a “Security Officer.” This came with the explanation that the charge was for the costs “to secure the room and building.”
TUP Interim President Brittany Walsh pointed out that Temple had said – prior to the event – the university would pay any extra security costs. But, after repeated emails, she has received no substantive reply.
I had really hoped to find that this was a simple billing mistake on the part of the University administration, so I spoke to friend of the ‘Cooler, Jack Posobiec, who has contacts down at Temple and has been working with Brittany Walsh on this issue. He put me in touch with her. Brittany confirmed that the University has indeed billed Temple University Purpose for the “extra security” which, as organizer of the event, Brittany says she never authorized. TUP had already paid a $576 fee to the University as part of their contract with the University back in September of last year. Therefore, the balance the University says is now owed is $244–for the “extra security” neede for the Geert Wilders event in October. It is a balance that the University says they will waive if the TUP claims financial hardship, but a balance that TUP will not pay because it is an infringement of their first amendment rights. Mike Adams speculates that:
[T]his group is being punished financially because it hosted a speaker likely to offend a particularly volatile segment of the population. As a consequence, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has written to the president of Temple. In that letter, FIRE cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), which says, “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”
Temple is a public university and is bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions. If they are smart, they will go the way of four other public universities—the University of Colorado at Boulder; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of California, Berkeley; and University of Arizona—and abandon such security fees before they get sued.
Two years ago, Temple’s speech code was struck down by the Third Circuit. That lawsuit was handled by my friends at the Alliance Defense Fund. If the university does not begin to respect the First Amendment, additional humiliation and litigation are certain to follow.
Brittany says that Temple President Ann Weaver Hart has been supportive of TUP and Brittany has contacted her in hopes that President Hart’s involvement in this matter will clear up the dispute between TUP and Student Activities before litigation proceeds.
Comments, compliments or complaints?


