With added protections, Texas House backs 'Campus Protection Act' to regulate free speech
Free speech on college campuses is poised to face new constraints after the Texas House gave preliminary approval to Senate Bill 2972, which will limit students' and employees' permitted expression on campus. The proposal reverses 2019 protections that established common outdoor areas of a higher education campus as traditional public forums.
With an 111-27 vote, the House late Tuesday night overwhelmingly approved an amended Senate Bill 2972, dubbed the "Campus Protection Act," which included more free speech protections compared with the Senate's original version.
Donning a circular state of Texas clock to highlight the few final hours the House had to pass bills on second reading, Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who sponsored the bill, stood behind Rep. Chris Turner to support the Democratic member from Grand Prairie in introducing an amendment to "make sure that our campuses must provide a public forum for free speech" and that nothing in the proposal would contradict the U.S. or Texas constitutions. Leach also issued an amendment clarifying that amplified sound is only prohibited "when there's an intent to intimidate others or to interfere with campus operations," university leadership or police. The chamber approved both amendments.
"I'm taking what could have been a three- or four-hour debate and it's going to be less than five minutes," Leach said as the House approached its 12th hour on the floor. "We've been working collaboratively with many of you here in the body, with our Senate counterparts, with the leadership at our university systems across the state, to guarantee the rights of students and faculty to gather peaceably on our college campuses."
Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, authored SB 2972 to tighten free speech rules on college campuses after pro-Palestinian protests erupted in universities across the country, including at several campuses in Texas, last year calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.
More than 150 people were arrested at Texas universities in April 2024 across several pro-Palestinian protests, which organizers and demonstrators asserted were peaceful and lawful. University administrators and lawmakers, however, have accused protesters of being disruptive and antisemitic. In Austin, the Travis County attorney's office dropped all criminal trespassing charges for demonstrators who were arrested during the April 24 and April 29 protests at the University of Texas. At least five students who were arrested have sued UT over alleged violations of their First Amendment rights.
"While the world watched Columbia, Harvard and other campuses across the country taken hostage by pro-terrorist mobs last year, Texas stood firm. UT allowed protest, not anarchy," Creighton said in a statement to the American-Statesman on Saturday about the bill. "No First Amendment rights were infringed—and they never will be."
Creighton's bill removes a provision authored six years ago that established universities as traditional public forums for everyone regardless of viewpoint — a conservative priority that he co-authored. State Republicans enthusiastically backed SB 18 in 2019, which they said protected speech at a time when campuses were wary of controversial conservative voices coming to campus.
Rights advocacy groups from across the political spectrum — from the national chapter of Young Americans for Liberty to the ACLU of Texas and the local chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations — opposed the bill's potential limit on free speech.
"The context of the (SB 18) bill is impossible to extricate from the protections, but it yielded a benefit to all Texans," Caro Achar, engagement coordinator at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said in an interview before the House amendments. "What's difficult about SB 2972 is that it feels more and more that the protections that were extended for all Texans' free speech rights and protest rights were a matter of convenience and viewpoint, and not inherently because they are valued rights, because now we're seeing a bill as the political context around who is being invited to campus or who is protesting on campus has potentially shifted."
Creighton denied that SB 2972 contrasts the 2019 law, saying it builds on the measure by protecting free speech that's peaceful while maintaining "safety and order" and empowering each institution to use "the local tools needed to preserve both free expression and the educational mission."
"Both laws protect the First Amendment rights of students, faculty and staff," Creighton said. "SB 2972 ensures that speech stays free, protest stays peaceful, and chaos never takes hold."
Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, who authored SB 18 in 2019, voted for Creighton's SB 2972 despite it revoking the public forum protection her bill established. She did not respond to Statesman requests for comment on her vote, but in a 2019 news release about SB 18, she said "colleges and universities should provide the opportunity for students to hear others' points of view in a free and unrestrained manner."
Turner said on the House floor that his amendment reinstates critical protections into SB 2972, such as a requirement that institutions must have a public forum for speech. Several Democrats, including Rep. Donna Howard of Austin and Rep. Aicha Davis of Dallas, who are both on the Higher Education Subcommittee, voted for the amended version of the bill.
If the House gives the bill final passage, the Senate will have to review the changes before it is sent to the governor.
"This is how we protect student safety, defend our institutions, and safeguard freedom for generations to come," Creighton said.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas House backs limits to free speech at universities
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

19 minutes ago
UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway sanction 2 far-right Israeli Cabinet ministers
JERUSALEM -- Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway said Tuesday they have imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers for allegedly 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich face asset freezes and travel bans from the five countries. The ministers are champions of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The decision by Western governments friendly to Israel was a sharp rebuke of Israel's settlement policies in the West Bank and of settler violence, which has spiked since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack ignited the war in the Gaza Strip. The five countries' foreign ministers said in a joint statement that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' Israel's Foreign Ministry said earlier it had been informed of the sanctions. Smotrich, the country's finance minister, wrote on social media that he found out that Britain had decided to sanction him for obstructing the viability of a Palestinian state. 'We are determined to continue building,' he said. 'We overcame Pharoah, we'll overcome Starmer's Wall.' Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, wrote on social media. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the move 'outrageous.' He said he had discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and they would meet next week to discuss Israel's response. The Biden administration took the rare step of sanctioning radical Israeli settlers implicated in violence in the occupied West Bank — sanctions that were then lifted by President Donald Trump. Eitay Mack, an Israeli human rights lawyer who spent years campaigning for the sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — along with violent West Bank settlers — described the move as 'historic.' 'It means the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken," he said. 'It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing,' said Mack. "It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next." Israel captured the West Bank along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want those territories for their hoped-for future state. Settlement growth and construction have been promoted by successive Israeli governments stretching back decades, but it has exploded under Netanyahu's far-right coalition, which has settlers in key Cabinet posts. There are now well over 100 settlements and 500,000 Israeli settlers sprawling across the territory from north to south — a reality, rights groups say, dimming any hopes for an eventual two-state solution.


The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway sanction 2 far-right Israeli Cabinet ministers
JERUSALEM (AP) — Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway said Tuesday they have imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers for allegedly 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich face asset freezes and travel bans from the five countries. The ministers are champions of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The decision by Western governments friendly to Israel was a sharp rebuke of Israel's settlement policies in the West Bank and of settler violence, which has spiked since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack ignited the war in the Gaza Strip. The five countries' foreign ministers said in a joint statement that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' Israel's Foreign Ministry said earlier it had been informed of the sanctions. Smotrich, the country's finance minister, wrote on social media that he found out that Britain had decided to sanction him for obstructing the viability of a Palestinian state. 'We are determined to continue building,' he said. 'We overcame Pharoah, we'll overcome Starmer's Wall.' Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, wrote on social media. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the move 'outrageous.' He said he had discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and they would meet next week to discuss Israel's response. The Biden administration took the rare step of sanctioning radical Israeli settlers implicated in violence in the occupied West Bank — sanctions that were then lifted by President Donald Trump. Eitay Mack, an Israeli human rights lawyer who spent years campaigning for the sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — along with violent West Bank settlers — described the move as 'historic.' 'It means the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken,' he said. 'It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing,' said Mack. 'It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next.' Israel captured the West Bank along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want those territories for their hoped-for future state. Settlement growth and construction have been promoted by successive Israeli governments stretching back decades, but it has exploded under Netanyahu's far-right coalition, which has settlers in key Cabinet posts. There are now well over 100 settlements and 500,000 Israeli settlers sprawling across the territory from north to south — a reality, rights groups say, dimming any hopes for an eventual two-state solution. ___ AP Correspondent Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.


Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.