Free-speech proviso for universities draws questions and is tabled

Representative Cobb Hunter introduced Amendment 17, which he described as a free-speech protection aimed at preventing job losses and disciplinary actions for speech he characterized as lawful. He said the amendment would apply to students, faculty and staff and was motivated by what he called 'fallout' from a recent controversy.

Several members questioned the amendment’s scope and whether a short proviso could effectively define 'lawful' speech. Representative Taylor asked specifically how the amendment would distinguish lawful speech from hateful speech that could cross into sanctionable conduct; Representative Kaske and others raised concerns about institutions like The Citadel and their codes of conduct. Cobb Hunter repeatedly replied that constitutional lines are drawn by courts and that his intent was to avoid punitive employment actions for speech he deemed lawful, acknowledging the issue’s legal complexity.

Representative Hyatt moved to table the amendment for further work; the motion carried by voice vote. Committee members urged the sponsor to collaborate with colleagues on drafting more precise language and to reconcile the proviso with ongoing bills that have been under development for several years.

Representative Cobb Hunter: 'It's free speech protection. I think we're on a very dangerous slope when we start firing people and doing all kinds of things to people for exercising free speech.' Representative Taylor: 'How do you define lawful, free speech?... where does your line come in this?'

Next steps: The amendment is tabled and the sponsor will work with colleagues to refine language before returning it to the committee.