Turning Point USA to host alternate Super Bowl halftime show
Turning Point USA unveiled its own Super Bowl halftime show to rival Bad Bunny, promoting “faith, family and freedom.”
College campuses have long welcomed controversial speakers, often to the chagrin of opposing students and residents. That disagreement can escalate into clashes that obstruct some people’s First Amendment rights.
The Indiana University chapter of Turning Point USA is welcoming former Fox News host Tucker Carlson to campus Oct. 21. It was a stop scheduled on conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s American Comeback Tour before he was killed while conducting a question-and-answer session with students at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.
Carlson’s views have prompted some in the Bloomington community to criticize IU for allowing the event to go on and are calling for protests.
However, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression warns against campus protesters overtaking speakers’ ability to express their views.
“By canceling an event, all they do is incentivize more heckler vetos and they incentivize more objectors to an event to try to get the event canceled,” Graham Piro of FIRE said. “That’s a dangerous road, so it’s important for Indiana to stand by its First Amendment obligations.”
The university community has had a checkered past with speakers, FIRE says. For example, two protesters were detained last year at a talk with then-U.S. Rep. Jim Banks and conservative TikTok influencer Chaya Raichik.
Why do universities allow controversial speakers?
Universities have been uniquely identified in First Amendment case law as a platform for the marketplace of ideas, Piro said. These spaces are traditionally set aside for open debate and inquiry, he said.
With that understanding, he said, it’s not the university’s prerogative to decide who can and cannot be invited to campus. Speakers invited to speak on campus are often courted by student groups or faculty, not administrators.
“When a university unduly restricts speakers who may come to campus on the basis of viewpoint, that harms discourse on campus,” he said, “And it suggests that universities are going to treat people or student groups or faculty members who espouse certain viewpoints … more harshly.”
What does it mean to shout down a speaker?
A shouting down occurs when one or multiple people seek to disrupt the event through shouting, chanting, going up on stage or other actions that drown out the speaker and disrupt the event.
Often, police or security remove such disruptive attendees.
A shouting down is an example of a “heckler’s veto.” These situations could lead down a slippery slope where a university may charge higher security costs for different events due to a perceived audience reaction, Piro said. That could raise constitutional concerns over disproportionate costs for similar events with different perceived crowd reactions.
When a shouting down occurs, Piro said, the student group and attendees are deprived of hearing a speaker they invited. It also removes the ability for audience members to challenge a speaker during question-and-answer sessions.
“When you shout down a speaker, you basically just cut speech off at the knees,” he said.
Is shouting down a speaker an exercise of free-speech rights?
Not really.
Yes, a shouting down includes a disrupter using their speech. However, Piro said, the freedom to speak also involves the freedom to hear when an expressive event is held. And, a student group or faculty member has the right to invite certain speakers to campus to hear their views.
Still, not every incident is a violation of the First Amendment. It’s case-by-case whether something is illegal, Prio said, and a situation typically needs to elevate to extreme circumstances. Regardless, advocates often advise against speech activities that, while legal, damage the environment for open discourse.
What are First Amendment-friendly ways to oppose campus speakers?
There’s a big difference between disrupting an event and peacefully protesting, Piro said. And there are many ways to do so while encouraging a healthy free-speech environment, he said.
People can protest without impeding others from getting into the event, he said, or they can host a counter event focused on their point of view. A person may also choose to attend to challenge a speaker during a Q&A or hold a sign that does not block others’ view.
“That sort of non-disruptive protest is acceptable and a very likely more effective way of making your message heard, without crossing the line into disrupting the event and potentially getting in trouble,” he said.
The USA TODAY Network – Indiana’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Have a story to tell? Reach Cate Charron by email at [email protected], on X at @CateCharron or Signal at @cate.charron.28.
