University of Missouri leadership is circulating proposed changes to its amplified sound policy that could impact student protesters, but legal experts say they may be unconstitutional.
If adopted, the policy would restrict permits for amplified sound Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Permits would also only be issued for stationary activities, to prevent disruption caused by marches.
“Prohibiting sound amplification on a massive university campus entirely during daytime hours on the grounds that we have classes during those hours is really, really sweeping,” said Greg Magarian, a professor at the Washington University School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic. “That seems like a big problem.”
As a public institution, Magarian said MU is allowed to restrict the time, manner and place of speech, but the regulations must be justified. A blanket ban on amplified sound during daytime hours is one of the reasons the policy could be unconstitutionally “overbroad,” he said.
“This policy, by its terms, sweeps in so many potential uses of sound amplification devices that the university can’t reasonably justify,” Magarian said.
When asked Monday for clarification or justification for the proposed changes, a University spokesperson declined comment.
An exception in the proposal would allow amplified sound quieter than a normal conversation — provided it’s at least 50 feet from a university building. But even with that provision, Magarian said a student using headphones less than 50 feet from a university building could still be required to acquire a permit under the provided definition.
“Another example would be if someone has a speaking impairment that requires a voice amplification device in order to be audible,” Magarian said, adding that it's not enough for MU to promise not to apply the policy in those cases.
“Courts don't trust the government to say, ‘Oh, don't worry, we won't enforce the policy in an absurd or onerous way,’” he said.
In addition to overbreadth, Magarian said the proposed changes place too much power in the hands of the permitting authority, the Office of Reservations & Events. According to the policy, those seeking permits must apply within ten days of the event, show an anticipated 250-person audience and demonstrate the sound will not disrupt university function.
“The system for seeking permits is so burdensome on the people seeking the permits, and the level of discretion given to the university to deny permits is so sweeping that I think this amounts to a standardless permit system that violates the First Amendment,” Magarian said.
Even before the changes were proposed, Mizzou Students for Justice in Palestine, a student group that routinely holds protests on campus, faced trouble acquiring permits, said Isleen Atallah, president of MSJP.
“We just decided it was less trouble to scream and use our voices,” Atallah said. “It's the precedent the university set that every time, even when we got approved, they rescinded the approval. So, it stopped being something that we wanted to worry about.”
Atallah was adamant that new rules will not keep MSJP members from protesting the Israel-Hamas war, including MU’s alleged involvement.
“It seems like there's a theme of Mizzou administrators not understanding that the whole purpose of a protest is to disrupt,” Atallah said. “If they can rethink their sound permits and guidelines, they can rethink how they treat students and address the new administration [during] all these difficult and scary times.”
Magarian said the sound policy could have a great impact on protests, because sound amplification devices are commonly used to organize big groups of people.
“It's a generally applicable policy, sure, but if there is concern that they're restructuring it to target this group, that's not constitutional,” Magarian said. “I think the political context of the moment provides at least some reasonable basis to ask these questions.”
In the context of MSJP’s rejection from MU’s homecoming parade in October and UM System President Mun Choi’s visit last month to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Magarian said a constitutional challenge to the amplified sound policy would likely hold more weight.
“The way that you hope governments will do regulations of speech is dispassionately. If this were a moment where not a whole lot were going on and the university lawyers said, ‘Okay, let's take a fresh look at our sound amplification policy,’ I would look at it and say...’You're just being a little bit overly protective,’” Magarian said. “Because of the timing, it's a lot more worrisome.”
Magarian said the proposed policy change is reflective of a crackdown on free speech seen at universities across the country lately.
“Universities are trying to satisfy the political whims of state governments and the national government. And that is really, really frightening,” Magarian said. “This is why we have a First Amendment — to prevent government officials from cracking down excessively on free speech.”
According to an internal email obtained by KBIA, members of MU's Faculty Council on University Policy are seeking feedback on the policy by May 16.
