Higher educational institutions; speech on campus. (HB1401)

Introduced By

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave) with support from co-patrons Del. Dickie Bell (R-Staunton), Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), and Del. Roxann Robinson (R-Chesterfield)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Public institutions of higher education; speech on campus. Prohibits public institutions of higher education from abridging the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus, except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

  • 09/02/2016 Committee
  • 09/02/2016 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17100215D
  • 09/02/2016 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
  • 01/13/2017 Assigned Courts sub: Constitutional Law
  • 01/25/2017 Referred from Courts of Justice
  • 01/25/2017 Referred to Committee on Education
  • 01/30/2017 Reported from Education (16-Y 5-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/31/2017 Read first time
  • 02/01/2017 Read second time
  • 02/01/2017 Pending question ordered
  • 02/01/2017 Engrossed by House
  • 02/02/2017 Read third time and passed House (76-Y 19-N)
  • 02/02/2017 VOTE: PASSAGE (76-Y 19-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/03/2017 Constitutional reading dispensed
  • 02/03/2017 Referred to Committee on Education and Health
  • 02/13/2017 Assigned Education sub: Higher Education
  • 02/16/2017 Reported from Education and Health with amendment (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/17/2017 Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/20/2017 Read third time
  • 02/20/2017 Reading of amendment waived
  • 02/20/2017 Committee amendment agreed to
  • 02/20/2017 Engrossed by Senate as amended
  • 02/20/2017 Passed Senate with amendment (36-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/21/2017 Placed on Calendar
  • 02/21/2017 Senate amendment agreed to by House (79-Y 16-N)
  • 02/21/2017 VOTE: ADOPTION (79-Y 16-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/24/2017 Enrolled
  • 02/24/2017 Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1401ER)
  • 02/24/2017 Signed by Speaker
  • 02/24/2017 Signed by President
  • 02/28/2017 Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 2/28/17
  • 02/28/2017 G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
  • 03/16/2017 G Approved by Governor-Chapter 506 (effective 7/1/17)
  • 03/16/2017 G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0506)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 15 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

THEIR PLACE THAT CAN PARTICIPATE IN DIRECT PRIMARY CARE AGREEMENTS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT PROVIDERS THAT PARTICIPATE IN SLAURNS -- INSURANCE, BUT GET A FEE ON TOP OF THAT. SO THERE MAY BE PEOPLE EXCLUDED THAT CAN'T PAY THAT FEE TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION. I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THIS DOES TO THAT POPULATION. THERE WAS A STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN THE ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE THAT CITED THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. THIS NEEDS TO BE STUDIED TO KNOW WHAT IMPACT THIS HAS, PARTICULARLY ON THOSE POPULATIONS. SO SO FOR THOSE REASONS I OPPOSE THE BILL. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUST UGH -- AUGUSTA, MR. LANDES.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERNS. LET ME POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS IN RELATION TO WHAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS RAISED. FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS TESTIMONY IN COMMITTEE, IN THE COMMERCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE, THAT ACTUALLY PRIMARY CARE AGREEMENTS MAY HELP PROMOTE DOCTORS TO ACTUALLY STAY IN PRIMARY CARE PRACTICES. RIGHT NOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IS MANY DOCTORS ARE STARTING TO WORK FOR LARGE HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS, HOSPITALS AND THE LIKE. THERE WAS A DOCTOR THAT I ACTUALLY REPRESENT WHO CAME DOWN AND SAID SHE SPECIFICALLY GOT INTO PRIMARY CARE BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO SERVE PATIENTS IN A COMMUNITY, LOCALLY. WITH ALL INDIVIDUALS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR INCOME LEVEL IS. AND SHE IS DOING THAT IN CROZIER. SHE BELIEVES AND I BELIEVE, TOO, BASED ON, AGAIN, WHAT WE ARE HEARING FROM OTHER DOCTORS AND OTHER STATES WHERE DIRECT PRIMARY CARE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE, THAT IT WILL ALLOW DOCTORS TO STAY IN THAT PRACTICE, IN THEIR PROMOTE THAT. COMMUNITIES, AND REALLY SO THAT'S THE FIRST ISSUE THAT I THINK, HOPEFULLY, WILL ADDRESS THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN TO SOME EXTENT. SECONDARILY, MR. SPEAKER, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THE DOCTOR. SO WHATEVER THE PATIENT CAN AFFORD IS WHATEVER THE DOCTOR AND THE PATIENT WILL AGREE TO. IN SOME CASES I THINK DIRECT PRIMARY CARE AGREEMENTS ARE VERY AFFORDABLE, WHERE IT'S JUST A MINIMAL AMOUNT FOR A DOCTOR'S VISIT, OR TO DOCTOR'S VISITS. IT COULD BE 250 OR $500 A YEAR OR EVEN LESS, SOME DOCTORS TELL ME, DEPENDING ON, AGAIN, WHAT IS PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE. BUT THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THIS AGREEMENT IS IT'S WHATEVER THE PATIENT CAN AFFORD AND WANTS TO PUT IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DOCTOR. AND THAT'S SIMPLY THE MOST FLEXIBLE WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS ACTUALLY WORK TO BENEFIT THE PATIENT. SO, MR. SPEAKER, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, I THINK WITH THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERNS, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I THINK THIS WILL ACTUALLY PROMOTE THE THINGS THAT HE WANTS TO GET AT, AND THAT'S HELPING TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD SHOWERS AND THE -- INSURANCE AND THE LIKE. SO MR. SPEAKER, I HOPE THE HOUSE WILL PASS THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM HENRICO, MR. O'BANNON.

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA RISE FOR A FRIENDLY QUESTION?

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): I WILL YIELD -- MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM HENRICO, DR. O'BANNON.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SO I THINK WE ARE ALL AWARE OF SOMETHING CALLED CONS -- CONCIERGE MEDICINE, AN ADDITIONAL FEE WHICH INCLUDES INSURANCE. AM I CORRECT THIS BILL IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF THE SHOWERS WORLD, SO THAT -- THE SHOWERS WORLD, SO THAT -- INSURANCE WORLD. THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARLINGTON'S COMMENTS?

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM NORFOLK, MR. LINDSEY.

Del. Joe Lindsey (D-Norfolk): MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THE DELEGATE FROM VIRGINIA BEACH, DR. STOLLE RISE FOR A

[Unknown]: ALL RIGHT GENTLEMAN YIELD? QUESTION? -- WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. Joe Lindsey (D-Norfolk): I YIELD.

[Unknown]: GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ASK DOES. THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA BEACH IF HE LIKEWISE SEES THIS BILL AS IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED BY DR. O'BANNON AND DELEGATE LANDES.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN, VERY MUCH SO. I THINK THIS IS AN OUTSTANDING PLAN AS WE ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS OF DELEGATE HOPE EARLIER THAT HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE POOR. WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE WORKING FOLKS RATE -- RIGHT NOW HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESUME, BUT IT'S VERY GOOD SO FAR.

Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville): I WILL FINISH, MR. SPEAKER. FOR THOSE POLICIES THAT HAVE VERY HIGH DEDUCTIBLES, AND CO-INSURANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, THIS MAY ACTUALLY WORK OUT FOR THOSE FOLKS A LOT BETTER WHERE THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET DIRECT PRIMARY CARE. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE HAVING TO PAY FOR THAT OUT OF THEIR POCKET, THEY CAN DO THIS ON A CONTRACTED RATE AT A MUCH LOWER RATE. I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD BILL, AND I WOULD HOPE EVERYBODY WOULD SUPPORT IT. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN, MR. SPEAKER. SHALL THE BILL BE ENGROSSED AND PASSED TO THIRD READING. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO. BILL IS ENGROSSED TO THIRD RODING -- READING.

[Unknown]: CONTINUING WITH HOUSE BILL SECOND READING REGULAR HOUSE BILL 1401. A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATED TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SPEECH ON CAMPUS. FROM THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA, MR. LANDES.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, HOUSE BILL 1401 PROMOTES THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION. WHAT THIS DOES, IT WOULD PROHIBIT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FROM ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING ENROLLED STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AND INVITED GUEST SPEAKERS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE AMENDMENT, AND OBVIOUSLY CASE PERMITTED BY THE FIRST LAW RELATED TO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THERE ARE GROUPS ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT THAT ARE TRYING TO ABRIDGE THE FREE SPEECH OPPORTUNITIES OF INDIVIDUALS ON OUR COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES. MOST OF US BELIEVE HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD BE A PLACE OF FREE THOUGHT AND FREE DISCUSSION. THAT FREE THOUGHT AND FREE DISCUSSION CANNOT OCCUR WHEN GROUPS TRY TO ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUALS TO EXPRESS THEIR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS. ALL THIS LEGISLATION DOES IS TO HAVE AND PUT IN PLACE A POLICY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TO SUPPORT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SAYING THAT THESE GROUPS SHOULD BE PROTECTED ON OUR CAMPUSES, AND THAT THERE ARE IDEAS AND THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEIR SPEECH SHOULD BE PROTECTED. THIS BILL DOES NO MORE AND NO LESS. SO MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD MOVE THAT THE HOUSE ENGROSS THE BILL AND PASS IT ON TO THIRD READING.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE, MR. TOSCANO. MR. THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A

[Unknown]: THANK YOU. QUESTION? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, I UNDERSTAND BACK IN 2014, WE PASSED A BILL THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, DELEGATE LINCOLN FELTER, HAVING -- LINGENFELTER, HAVING TO DO WITH RESFRIKS -- RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH. IT WAS DEFENDANTLY -- DEFTLY DRAFTED AND PASSED WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOTE, DESIGNED TO PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF STUDENTS SPEAKERS ON MR. SPEAKER, THIS BILL LOOKS CAMPUS. TO GO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, AND IT USES ON LINE 16, FACULTY AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AND INVITED GUESTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INSTITUTION COULDN'T ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING IB INVITED GUESTS. MY QUESTION TO THE GENTLEMAN, WHO SHARES THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA WITH ME, IS WHO MIGHT THOSE INVITED GUESTS BE? AND WHO WOULD INVITE THEM? MR. SPEAKER, I SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE CODE SECTION YOU ARE REFERENCING OBVIOUSLY IS LATER IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION CODE SECTION, AND THAT DEALS WITH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO STUDENTS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, AND ALSO EMPLOYEES, AND IS DETAILED. THIS IS BASICALLY THE FRONT PART OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION CODE SECTION, AT LEAST THIS BILL, AS IT IS DRAFTED, AND WHAT INVITED GUEST WOULD MEAN WHEN WE POLLED THE UNIVERSITIES OVER THE SUMMER RELATED TO WHAT POLICIES THEY HAD IN PLACE RELATED TO THE CURRENT STATUTES, THERE WERE INSTITUTIONS THAT DID HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE TO FOLLOW UP ON DELEGATE LINGAMFELTER'S LEGISLATION PREVIOUSLY. THERE WERE MANY THAT DID NOT. BUT THERE WAS, I THINK, SOME CONCERN FROM THE INSTITUTIONS THAT THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT IN HOW AND WHAT POLICIES THEY HAD IN PLACE, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, SOME OF THEM COVERED SOME OF THESE AREAS LIKE FACULTY AND STUDENTS; SOME DID NOT. SOME OF THEM HAVE POLICIES FOR INVITED GUESTS; SOME DID NOT. SO THEREFORE, IN WORKING WITH OUR DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES ATTORNEY, WE BELIEVED THAT THIS POLICY WOULD CLEARLY DEFINE FOR ALL THOSE GROUPS, AND MAKING SURE THAT ALL THOSE GROUPS HAD THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS PROTECTED. AND INVITED GUEST IS BECAUSE, THERE ARE POLICIES IN PLACE BY MANY INSTITUTIONS NOW ROOT -- RELATED TO FREE SPEECH AND WHO IS INVITED AND WHO IS NOT. BUT THIS ATTEMPTS TO GET TO ALL THOSE GROUPS. MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT IF A PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY, OR FACULTY MEMBER, STUDENT SHALL ET CETERA, WERE TO INVITE A GUEST WHO IS A PROPONENT OF HAMAS, OR HEZBOLLAH, WOULD THIS BILL ALLOW THAT PERSON TO EXERCISE A RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS? MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT HE WILL NOTICE THAT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE GRANTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION. AS HE KNOWS, AND I AM NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT EXPERT OR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LEGAL EXPERT, BUT I WOULD SAY THERE IS CASE LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS RENDERED DECISIONS RELATED TO WHAT FREE SPEECH IS ALLOWED AND NOT ALLOWED, IN OTHER WORDS, AS HE KNOWS, YOU AND I CANNOT GO INTO THE MOVIE THEATRE AND CRY "FIRE!" THAT HAS BEEN RENDERED. THERE ARE CERTAIN, I BELIEVE, COURT CASES RELATED THAT THE COURT HAS RENDERED AN OPINION ON RELATED TO VIOLENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU AND I CANNOT INCITE VIOLENCE AS PART OF OUR FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS. AND SO I WOULD SAY IF AN INVITED GUEST WAS PROMOTING VIOLENCE, OR TERRORISM, ON CAMPUS, OR THE LIKE, I THINK THE UNIVERSITY WOULD BE WITHIN ITS RIGHTS NOT TO ALLOW THOSE GROUPS. BUT IF THEY ARE COMING ON CAMPUS TO TALK AND DIALOGUE AND HAVE A DEBATE ON THIS OR THAT ISSUE, I THINK THOSE GROUPS WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT THAT IS WHY WE'VE TRIED TO DRAFT THIS LEGISLATION THAT WAY. MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE MEASURE?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): I WILL GET BACK TO YOU. GENTLEMAN FROM ALEXANDER, MR. LEVINE.

Del. Mark Levine (D-Alexandria): MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA RISE FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: MR. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? -- WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. Mark Levine (D-Alexandria): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD.

[Unknown]: GENTLEMAN YIELDS. MR. SPEAKER, I AM GENERALLY UNDECIDED ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION, SO THIS IS A GREAT CHANCE TO PERSUADE ME. IF THE LEGISLATION SAID THAT NO PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHALL ABRIDGE THE FREE DOLL -- FREEDOM OF ENROLLED STUDENTS, FACULTY, OTHER EMPLOYEES AND INVITED GUESTS TO SPEAK ON CAMPUS, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION, BECAUSE I THINK A COLLEGE HAS CONTROL OVER ITS STUDENTS, FACULTIES, EMPLOYEES AND INVITED GUEST. BUT IT SAYS ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LIMITED TO. SO MY QUESTION FOR THE PATRON, IF YOU HAVE AN UNINVITED, NON-GUEST, SOMEONE WHO NO ONE ON THE CAMPUS WANTS THERE, MAYBE SOMEONE WHO IS MENTALLY ILL, MUTTERING STRANGE THINGS, AND MAYBE WANDERS INTO A FACULTY LOUNGE, OR INTO A BUILDING OR SIMPLY IS OUT IN THE COURTYARD, LOUDLY SCREAMING ABOUT ALIENS COMING, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT PERSON BE INCLUDED UNDER THIS LEGISLATION? MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED BECAUSE IT IS EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AND THAT IS WHY IT SAYS ANY INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING SHALL AND THAT'S WHY WE FURTHER DEFINE WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITHIN THE LEGISLATION. IF THE GENTLEMAN DOESN'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH AND DOESN'T WANT AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON CAMPUS, DON'T VOTE FOR THE BILL. IF YOU WANT TO PROMOTE FREE EXPRESSION AND FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS, VOTE FOR THE BILL. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD TELL THE GENTLEMAN. SO MR. SPEAKER, FURTHER QUESTION, WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN. JUST TO CLARIFY POINT, THIS BILL, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT STUDENTS, FACULTY, EMPLOYEES OR INVITED GUESTS TO SPEAK ON CAMPUS WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION, EXCEPT THAT PROVIDED UNDER THE FIRST MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD TELL AMENDMENT. THE GENTLEMAN THAT IF HE LOOKS AT 23.1900, THAT DEALS WITH HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THOSE ON CAMPUS. THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ON CAMPUS RELATE THE -- RELATED TO THEIR RIGHTS FOR FREE SPEECH. AND THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE BILL WAS DRAFTED BY OUR ATTORNEYS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS WHAT IS INTENDED. I DO THINK THAT THE GENTLEMAN WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT THE UNIVERSITIES DO HAVE LIMITATIONS THAT THEY CAN PUT ON WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE INVITED OR NOT INVITE. AND THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE BILL AS WELL IN THAT THEY CAN HAVE POLICIES RELATED TO THAT, BUT THERE IS CASE LAW FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SUPREME COURT WHAT IS ALLOWED AS FREE SPEECH AND NOT. AGAIN, I HAVE MENTIONED TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
BILL 1043 IS NOW BEFORE US, A BILL TO AMEND AND REENACT A SECTION OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA RELATING TO THE JOINT COMMISSION ON HEALTH CARE, SUNSET, BILL WAS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES. ANYBODY PREPARED TO HANDLE DELEGATE -- SENATOR DANCE'S BILL? THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARLINGTON, MR. HOPE.

Comments

Cark Mole writes:

Isn't this already a thing? 1st amendment anyone......

Lare Wee writes:

trueeee^

Vicki Welsh writes:

It's about time that college campuses were forced to recognize the 1st amendment.