Free Speech Advocacy Group Condemns ‘Mob Censorship’ of Riley Gaines

Former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines speaks at a rally outside of the NCAA Convention in San Antonio on Jan. 12, 2023. Darren Abate/AP Photo

A constitutional rights legal organization that defends freedom of speech on and off campuses is demanding accountability for the “mob censorship” that took place at San Francisco State University (SFSU), where former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was attacked by a group of protesters on April 6.

In a letter (pdf) addressed to university President Lynn Mahoney, Amanda Nordstrom, program officer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), requested that SFSU address the attack, educate its students on the distinction between protected protests and disruptive conduct, and provide a response to FIRE by April 18.

“FIRE is seriously concerned by SFSU’s failure to address the anti-free speech actions of some protestors at last week’s Turning Point USA event that featured NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines speaking on women’s sports and transgender athletes,” Nordstrom said.

Gaines, 22, was speaking about the ethical problems with allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports during a Turning Point USA event being held on campus.

The speech was given on the same day the Biden administration proposed a new Title IX rule that would prohibit schools from making policies that ban transgender students from participating on teams inconsistent with their biological sex.

Gaines herself had been marginalized in an NCAA Women’s Championship competition in favor of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas in 2022 and has spoken out against males participating as females in women’s sports.

Since the attack, the University Police Department has stated that there have been no arrests, and Jamillah Moore, vice president for student affairs and enrollment management, sent an email to students thanking them for a peaceful protest.

However, the videos of the event Gaines posted show no evidence of a peaceful protest, according to FIRE.

“It is alarming that this level of mob censorship and pugnacity occurred on a campus bound to respect students’ constitutional right to free expression, and despite the presence of public university administrators, campus security, and (eventually) police,” Nordstrom wrote. “While we appreciate your April 10 email regarding this incident (and another, involving a serious threat to academic freedom at SFSU), your assertion that ‘the First Amendment was honored’ during this event does not track with the video footage that clearly showed uncontrolled and substantial disruption during Gaines’ presentation not only in the hallway (audible inside the room), but also inside the room as protestors repeatedly interrupted her speech.”

In a statement to The Epoch Times in a previous article, Gaines said she had to reread Moore’s statement, as the use of the word “peaceful” described a situation far from her experience.

“I was held hostage for three hours. I missed my flight home because it was not safe to leave. These ‘peaceful’ protesters stormed into the classroom where I was explaining why sex-protected sports are necessary for fairness and safety and ambushed me. They turned the lights off and came in with full force, physically and verbally assaulting me.”

‘Heckler’s Veto’

According to Nordstrom, the First Amendment requires public universities to protect students’ free speech rights by addressing disruptions to free speech events when they occur.

“Failure to properly address such disruptions ratifies an unconstitutional ‘heckler’s veto’ and will only incentivize more threats to students’ freedom of speech and deter them from hosting potentially controversial speakers on campus,” Nordstrom wrote. “When those opposed to speakers or their message target such events for disruption, educational institutions must respond with ‘bona fide efforts’ to protect expressive rights.”

Nordstrom said a heckler’s veto is when protesters “substantially disrupt” an event with violence or other methods to prevent a speaker from carrying out their message.

The letter cited Bible Believers v. Wayne County as setting the precedent for protecting the speech by not removing the speaker but rather those who are disrupting the speech.

According to the background of the case, in 2012, the Bible Believers, an evangelical group, were proselytizing at a festival celebrating Muslim culture.

After a clash between the group and festivalgoers, the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office escorted the Bible Believers out of the festival.

The Bible Believers later claimed that the sheriff’s office suppressed their right to free speech by allowing an aggressive mob to threaten them, which led to their removal.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Bible Believers, ruling that Wayne County had violated the right to freedom of expression and exercise of religion.

“When there is violence in response to protected free speech, the government has to address the violent perpetrators, not remove the speaker,” Zach Greenberg, senior program officer with FIRE, told The Epoch Times. “That is the doctrine of the heckler’s veto: the rights of the speaker come before the rights of those who are committing the violence and disrupting the space.”

‘It Is Censorship’

According to Nordstrom’s letter, SFSU should’ve done more to ensure Gaines’ freedom of speech without considerable interference.

Universities nationwide have a responsibility to educate students on not only their First Amendment rights but also the rights of others, Nordstrom said.

“To protect free speech and ensure their educational communities’ safety, universities must clarify that the use of force or mob rule to silence speech is not an exercise in free speech—it is censorship,” Nordstrom said.

The Epoch Times contacted SFSU for comment.

Terri Wu contributed to this report.