This is KPBS Midday Edition . I am Maureen Cavanaugh. A lawsuit has been filed over ACLU -- San Diego administrators after they refused to stop running papers last year. BD funding came less than a week after a controversy all article published in the koala. It is known for producing outrageous satire. The University is bound to enforce First Amendment rights. Even the funding was withdrawn from all papers, it is obvious that it was intended for one target. Pulling student funding was the student councils decision. The associated students Council is an arm of the University for purposes of allocating funding that is derived from campus activity fees. By University policy, the Chancellor of the University is responsible for ensuring that the Council implies with all legal requirements in the way that it handles those funds, including the Constitution. If what you are asserting here is that the polling of that money from all students for newspapers was an offense against the Constitution? Yes. The University through the student government violated the First Amendment in two ways. Regardless of intent, or even if the intent was benign, violates the free press clause of the first amendment to discriminate against the press as an institution. That is true at the national, state, local, or college-level. The free press clause of the First Amendment singles out and protects the press as an institution uniquely above all other institutions. There is a clear line of case law from the Supreme Court on down that the government may not single out or target the press for special or unique burdens that are not shared generally by similar organizations. The student Council said funding was poll because they want to use student fees in another way. Private funding would allow papers to remain independent. Why isn't that an adequate explanation? The decision was to strip funding from the press as an institution, while that funding remains to other student organizations to engage in other forms of speech. It doesn't matter what the motor -- motive is for free purposes. The government may not target the press. The article that allegedly to vote the move was a satire marking safe spaces on campus. It inpatient a dangerous space where students could feel free to use the end word and commit sexual outrages. That's pretty tough stuff. It is outrageous and it is satire. It is well understood it is satire. The First Amendment, without doubt, protect satire -- protects satire. It is designed to protect speech that is unpopular or satire -- outrageous. It guarantees the right that which is provocative and unpopular. It protects the right to speak out against that speech. It protects the right to debate, to condemn, to criticize. The University and student government were free to state their own point of view, to call out the koala and criticize it. If student body was free to protest and criticize, that is what the first amendment protects. What it does not allow is for the government to single out and punish speech because of its viewpoint. Have you heard anything from UC San Diego administration? If they responded to this lawsuit? There is been no respect -- official response. We have a motion for preliminary injunction for July 18. I understand the University will appear and defend the case. The koala has been able to raise money privately to keep publishing, how they been damaged? They have been damaged concretely and is a matter of principle and not just to the koala or to the First Amendment and the First Amendment rights of all other student press organizations that had been stripped of the funding that is otherwise available to student organizations. Whether it is the koala or any other organization, their ability to punish is hindered by the loss of funds. They cannot publish as much. They cannot publish is frequently. Regardless of whether they have been able to raise additional money privately, the First Amendment principle is the same, whether we're talking about $.10 or $2 million. The government simple Lee cannot use basis of free speech for making decisions and they cannot target or single out the press. There was a problem with the koala a few years back and was resolved without a lawsuit. Could there be some sort of talk about the situation being result outside of court? I am always happy to talk about resolving cases. I did approach the University and I wrote a letter to the University in December. I spoke with the University's attorney. The University has been unwilling to rescind its unconstitutional decision. If the University wants to talk about rescinding its decision in complying with the Constitution, I am happy to talk to them. I have been talking to David Loy . Thank you very much. Thank you.
The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday accusing UC San Diego officials of violating the First Amendment after student government cut funding for student print media in November, including controversial satire newspaper The Koala.
The student government vote on Nov. 18 came less than a week after The Koala used racial slurs in an article attacking “safe spaces” on campus. UCSD administrators released a statement the same day denouncing The Koala, calling it “profoundly repugnant, repulsive, attacking and cruel.”
The ACLU claims in its lawsuit that student government violated the First Amendment by targeting student press groups while still providing student funding to other speech on campus. The university’s actions were also a veiled attempt at targeting The Koala, the ACLU said.
“Let’s not ditch the good ones worthy of this funding and work actively on finding ways to encourage and help them financially,” Suresh Subramani, executive vice chancellor of academic affairs, wrote administrators following the vote, according to the lawsuit. “I know you are working on this.”
A UCSD spokeswoman said Wednesday that the university does not comment on pending litigation. Student government officials said in November that UCSD’s official statement had no impact on their vote, which was not directed at The Koala.
David Loy, San Diego ACLU legal director, will join KPBS Midday Edition Thursday with more on the suit.
