Pro-Life Student Censored Where? Why?

Censorship

(TheProudRepublic.com) – In blatant violation of First Amendment rights, a pro-life student was censored by a community college hosting a pro-choice event, prompting scathing criticism from a prominent free speech organization.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, is challenging McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas, over censoring a pro-life student’s criticism of an event featuring Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.

FIRE has given the college a short deadline to address this censorship issue.

The controversy began when Madison Evans, a student at the college, expressed her disappointment and distaste on the college’s Instagram post about an event with Planned Parenthood.

She stated that “the murder of innocent babies is not a great resource ever. as a student i am disappointed & disgusted that murder of innocent lives is being encouraged.” According to FIRE’s letter, an administrator of the college’s Instagram account deleted Evans’ comment.

In a subsequent meeting, Associate Director of Marketing and Communications Jennifer Norman reiterated the college’s stance, reportedly telling Evans, “MCC’s social media accounts are not appropriate platforms for expressing concerns about the values of another community organization.”

FIRE, however, contends that this policy conflicts with the First Amendment rights of students at public colleges.

FIRE’s argument is grounded in the principle that public college administrators, as government officials, are bound by the First Amendment when they create forums for open discussion, whether in-person or online.

The group emphasized that viewpoint discrimination in such forums is prohibited, citing established legal precedent. FIRE also noted that a federal court has previously determined a Facebook page for a county board to be a public forum, suggesting a similar interpretation for the college’s social media platforms.

In their letter, FIRE argued that Evan’s comment was relevant to the discourse surrounding a contentious political and cultural debate and that its removal constituted viewpoint discrimination.

The letter further stated, “CREW’s Instagram administrators’ selective removal of Evans’ critical yet relevant comment is textbook viewpoint discrimination.”

FIRE maintains that while public colleges are not required by law to manage social media accounts, they are subject to certain legal obligations when they choose to do so, especially regarding the moderation of public commentary and the suppression of specific viewpoints.