#

Gov. Chris Sununu likes free speech, the First Amendment, and podcaster Joe Rogan.

Donald Trump? Not so much.

In a radio interview Tuesday morning, the Republican governor told WGIR’s left-leaning talk host Chris Ryan he opposed attempts to silence media voices like Rogan’s, whether or not you agree with their viewpoints.

“Whether it’s social media, the mainstream media, or Joe Rogan,  sometimes you get a difference of opinion — you could call it misinformation — it comes from everywhere now. To say we’re going to become the ‘misinformation police’ because we don’t agree with what they say… that’s just a complete violation of the First Amendment and goes against everything America is about,” Sununu said.

Rogan, whose podcasts attract around 11 million listeners each, is the target of progressives who want his program de-platformed by the Spotify media platform. They are angry that he has interviewed COVID-19 vaccine skeptics and other controversial figures on his show, allowing them to share their opinions. Rogan has also expressed skepticism about public health policy on vaccines, and masks.

Among the progressives pushing to shut him down are aging musicians Neil Young and Joni Mitchell. A single episode of Rogan’s podcast draws more listeners on Spotify than a month’s worth of listeners to Young and Mitchell’s music — combined.

When Ryan argued that “mainstream media programming like his show should be viewed as more trustworthy than Rogan’s (“we have gatekeepers!”) and the confusion between what Ryan considers legitimate media and podcasts is a problem, Sununu pushed back.

“I disagree. I listen to Joe Rogan. I don’t consider him mainstream news. I like Joe Rogan I listen, I agree with something he says and disagree with others. But I would never compare him with Fox News. We have to make our own decisions about the weight we put on an individual’s words.”

Sununu also noted the irony of being asked about the Rogan controversy on CNN two days earlier.

“I thought the question was funny coming from the mainstream media — ‘what should we do about people who put out misinformation?’ I could have gone down a list of 100 things on each of the ‘mainstream’ news channels that are not true, or misinformation, or partisan leaning. But that [censoring speech] is a rabbit hole we’d never come out of,” Sununu said.

However, Sununu was less forgiving of the questionable claims coming from former President Donald Trump. Asked about Trump’s suggestion that participants in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot should be pardoned, Sununu dismissed the idea as a fringe notion.

“I understand the former president has his opinion, but I don’t think it’s shared by pretty much anyone else. I don’t think anybody thinks those who assaulted the U.S. Capitol, assaulted police officers, should be pardoned,” Sununu said. “Especially in the GOP, we believe in accountability, the rule of law, and supporting law enforcement. It would send a terrible message not to support law enforcement.

“When you look at the issues that were going on at the Capitol on that day, if we’re going to take a pass on that, we’d be saying it’s OK to take a pass on those who assaulted police and burned down cities in 2020,” Sununu added.

“There’s still a rule of law that has to prevail.”

Recent polls show a majority of Republicans want the congressional investigation into the events of January 6 to end, and only 17 percent of Republicans believe the rioters are criminals. Another 66 percent say, “They had a point but went too far.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) tells NHJournal it has launched an investigation into Dartmouth College’s decision to shut down an appearance by conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face of threats of violence from Antifa.

“Threats of violence are never an appropriate response to speech you oppose and must not dictate who may speak, or what may be said, on a college campus. Universities should not reward those who threaten violence by canceling controversial speakers,” said FIRE Program Officer Zach Greenberg.

The ACLU of New Hampshire, however, is choosing to remain silent.

Ngo and former Antifa activist Gabe Nadales were scheduled to discuss extremism in America Thursday night on the Hanover, N.H. campus. The event was hosted by the Dartmouth College Republicans and the conservative activists at Turning Point USA. Ngo has built a national reputation covering violent, far-Left protests, events often ignored by the mainstream media.

The college security officer told a reporter for NHJournal Ngo’s appearance was canceled, and the event would be held online, but he would not say why the change was made.

“That’s a decision above my pay grade,” the security officer said.

Dartmouth College’s Associate Vice President for Communications Diana Lawrence said the event was moved online after it became clear it could not be held safely in person.

“In light of concerning information from Hanover police regarding safety issues, similar concerns expressed by the College Republican leadership, and challenges with the student organization’s ability to staff a large public event and communicate effectively (including dissemination of the visitor policy and a prohibition on bags in the building), the college has requested that the ‘Extremism in America’ panel be moved online,” Lawrence said.

Lawrence said 94 people signed on to attend Ngo’s event virtually. There was no visible presence of protestors Thursday night. A pair of men turned away at the doors, who appeared to be in their 30s and 40s, respectively, said they were on the college campus to attend the event. They declined to answer any further questions. 

“The administration canceled the event and gave the student organizers the choice of holding a last-minute zoom meeting or nothing at all,” Ngo told InsideSources. “An event on violent extremism was threatened by violent extremists. It’s a cliche. Why did the College wait until two hours before the event to drop the ultimatum on organizers and speakers? Dartmouth College’s decision actually gives a blueprint for extremists to shut down future events.”

Several municipal police officers from Hanover and nearby Lebanon police departments were visible on the campus before the event. Hanover police declined to comment on the cancellation when contacted. On Friday morning, NH Journal was told senior Hanover police officers were in meetings and unavailable to comment.

Greenberg said FIRE plans to investigate the threats and the cancellation. He said the college needs to tell the truth about what, exactly, happened.

“While we appreciate that Dartmouth’s administration has facilitated an online version of this event, initially intended to take place in person, we must remain vigilant against universities citing safety concerns as a pretext to censor unpopular expression, and must ensure that those seeking to impose a “heckler’s veto” cannot succeed in doing so,” Greenberg said. “Dartmouth must be transparent by identifying the concerns that led to the cancellation of the planned event, the steps it took to address those concerns, and why it decided that the event could not take place as planned.”

University administrators silencing speech was once an issue almost certain to inspire action by the American Civil Liberties Union. But in recent years, the one-time civil rights advocacy group has abandoned its free speech mission, the New York Times reports.

Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, did not respond to requests for comment.

In the days leading up to the event, members of Antifa organized a counterprotest, with some making threats to stop Ngo at all costs.

“When you enter our home you play by our rules, not yours,” the Northeast Antifa social media account posted. “New England is anti-fascists, and we will hold that line till death.”

HANOVER —Dartmouth College administrators canceled an on-campus appearance by conservative journalist Andy Ngo’s Thursday night after a deluge of online threats from Antifa members.

Ngo, who has built a national reputation covering violent, far-Left protests often given little attention by the mainstream media, was set to appear at an event hosted by the Dartmouth College Republicans and the conservative activists of Turning Point USA.  

New Hampshire Journal was turned away at the door of Moore Hall by Dartmouth security on Thursday evening. The college security officer said the event was changed to be an online appearance, but he would not say why the change was made.

“That’s a decision above my pay grade,” the security officer said.

“The administration canceled the event and gave the student organizers the choice of holding a last-minute zoom meeting or nothing at all,” Ngo told NHJournal Thursday night. “An event on violent extremism was threatened by violent extremists. It’s a cliche. Why did the College wait until two hours before the event to drop the ultimatum on organizers and speakers? Dartmouth College’s decision actually gives a blueprint for extremists to shut down future events.”

Police stand outside Dartmouth College’s Moore Hall after conservative journalist Andy Ngo’s appearance was canceled by campus administrators.

Several municipal police officers from Hanover and nearby Lebanon police departments were visible on the campus near Moore Hall Thursday evening. Hanover police declined to comment on the cancellation when contacted. 

Dartmouth College’s Associate Vice President for Communications Diana Lawrence said the event was moved online after it became clear it could not be held safely in person.

“In light of concerning information from Hanover police regarding safety issues, similar concerns expressed by the College Republican leadership, and challenges with the student organization’s ability to staff a large public event and communicate effectively (including dissemination of the visitor policy and a prohibition on bags in the building), the college has requested that the ‘Extremism in America’ panel be moved online,” Lawrence said.

There was no visible presence of protestors Thursday night. A pair of men turned away at the doors, who appeared to be in their 30s and 40s, respectively, said they were on the college campus to attend the event. They declined to answer any further questions. 

Ngo and former Antifa member Gabe Nadales were set to speak about extremism in America at the event. After Dartmouth’s order, Ngo tweeted:

“The admin of @dartmouth College canceled the live speaking event about #Antifa featuring myself & @OGNadales due to security concerns. (Bomb-sniffing dogs were brought in.) This is extremely disappointing but we’re continuing in a virtual capacity.”

News of Ngo’s appearance got members of Antifa organized into planning a counterprotest in the days leading up to the event, with some making threats to stop Ngo at all costs.

Police officers stand outside Dartmouth College’s Moore Hall after an in-person appearance by conservative journalist Andy Ngo was canceled on January 20, 2022.

“When you enter our home you play by our rules, not yours,” the Northeast Antifa social media account posted. “New England is anti-fascists, and we will hold that line till death.”

The Green Mountain John Brown Gun Club stated online it “called up reserves” of Antifa super soldiers to be on hand for the event. A member of a Portland, Ore. Antifa group, Jonathan Dylan Chase, offered money for anyone who managed to assault Ngo during his Dartmouth appearance.

Antifa is a decentralized organization of people who claim to be anti-fascists and has been at the heart of violent street protests for years, clashing with both innocent political protestors and aggressive white supremacists along the way. Members of Antifa have engaged in violent protests in Portland, Ore. over the past few years, where Ngo gained fame covering the clashes between Portland’s Antifa and white supremacists like the Proud Boys. 

Ngo has been accused of serving as a propagandist for the Proud Boys in exchange for protection at the protests, something he has denied. Ngo was assaulted by Antifa protesters in 2019 in an incident in which he was punched repeatedly and hospitalized due to his injuries.

Dartmouth, once a bastion of free speech, has evolved like many progressive campuses to be hostile territory for speakers from the Right. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) ranks Dartmouth 63rd in the nation for its campus culture supporting free speech.

Lawrence said the college strives to make sure all viewpoints are heard on campus, so long as it can be done safely. 

“Dartmouth prizes and defends the right of free speech and the freedom of the individual to make their own disclosures, while at the same time recognizing that such freedom exists in the context of the law and in responsibility for one’s own actions. The exercise of these rights must not deny the same rights to any other individual. The institution therefore both fosters and protects the rights of individuals to express dissent,” Lawerence said. “Protest or demonstration shall not be discouraged so long as neither force nor the threat of force is used, and so long as the orderly processes of the institution are not deliberately obstructed.” 

Last year’s appearance by Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) drew a crowd from the Democratic Socialist Club at Dartmouth, and liberals on campus reportedly engaged in vandalism of the posters for the event.

The Democratic Socialist Club protest itself descended into obscene anti-police chants directed at the sole Hanover police officer observing the proceedings, though there was no reported violence at the event.

Exeter High School and SAU 16 struck back against a Catholic student suing over his free speech rights, saying he was disciplined for being a bully and not for expressing his religious views. However, they acknowledge in their court filing that the “bullying” in question was expressing his opinion on gender.

The student, known in the lawsuit as M.P., claims he was disciplined for expressing his opinion, informed by his Catholic faith, that there are only two genders. M.P. expressed these views off the school campus and was then suspended from the football team for one game, according to his lawsuit.

The district’s attorney, Michel Eaton, wrote in a response to the lawsuit filed late last week, there is no free speech case here. Eaton also claims M.P. was not suspended by the school, but benched for one game by his coach. The benching had nothing to do with the school’s anti-discrimination policies regarding transgender issues.

“M.P.’s coach did not decide to bench M.P. based upon M.P.’s opinion that there are only two genders, nor would he. Rather, M.P. was benched for using crude, inappropriate, and disrespectful language while communicating with Student Doe. This behavior was consistent with M.P.’s documented history of bullying and inappropriate behavior, including such behavior on the school bus and such behavior targeted at Student Doe specifically,” Eaton wrote.

Student Doe, who is not transgender or non-binary, is the student with whom M.P. had a reportedly heated conversation regarding gender and sexuality while on the school bus. The conversation later continued via text messaging, according to court records. Student Doe, in turn, reported the conversation — which took place outside the classroom and off the football field — to M.P.’s coach, Eaton wrote.

“M.P. ‘s coach took what he believed to be an appropriate and limited remedial measure to teach and ensure the respect that is expected of all student athletes,” Eaton wrote.

According to Eaton’s filing, Student Doe and M.P. have a long-standing antagonistic relationship. Eaton submitted as evidence the football team code of conduct, which M.P. signed, and copies of the text conversation between M.P. and Student Doe. However, both items were sealed by the court and not available to the public. 

Whether or not M.P. engaged in bullying, the district acknowledges in Eaton’s filing that M.P. was disciplined for expressing his views, however crudely, while off-campus. It’s similar to the free-speech case in which a Pennsylvania high school student was disciplined after she posted a profanity-laced message to Snapchat that she recorded at a convenience store.

The U. S. Supreme Court last year ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Brandi Levy, the former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School. The high court found the school violated Levy’s First Amendment rights when it reprimanded and suspended her from the junior varsity team because of her off-campus comments about the cheer team.

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sided with Levy in her case, the New Hampshire ACLU has been silent in the case of M.P. In the past, protecting an individual’s personal speech against government action would have been a classic ACLU  case. But the organization has become openly partisan, as The New York Times reported in a story headlined “Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis.”

Instead of suing on behalf of an individual’s rights,  New Hampshire’s ACLU is part of a federal lawsuit opposing New Hampshire’s new anti-discrimination law. They want to overturn the law preventing teachers and government employees from teaching that “a person, because of their membership in one or more identified group(s), is inherently either: (1) racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously or (2) superior or inferior to people of another identified group.”

The ACLU-NH is joined in the lawsuit by Andres Mejia,  director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice for the Exeter Region Cooperative School District, and a board member of the Black Lives Matter Seacoast organization. Some Exeter parents have questioned whether a member of a group that claims all white people, regardless of their behavior, participate in white supremacy can treat students fairly. 

Writing about the Exeter case in the Portsmouth Herald, former political consultant Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos defended the Catholic student’s right to express opinions others — including the school district — don’t like.

“No one has the right not to be offended. I do actually have the right to say something that might offend you,” Xanthopoulos wrote. “That’s precisely why there is the First Amendment. It’s not there to protect popular speech, it is there to protect you from being punished by the government for speech that is not popular.

“Which, horrifyingly, is precisely what occurred here.”

When former Dartmouth Professor of Government Ned LeBow cracked a joke on a San Francisco elevator, nobody could have foreseen the international firestorm it would spark. The resulting story of p.c. overreaction and academic idiocy left everyone except the 76-year-old professor looking ridiculous.

But not, apparently, quite ridiculous enough. The p.c. pinheads have censured the professor…again.

The story began at an academic conference in San Francisco when Professor Lebow, currently of King’s College London found himself on the same elevator as Simona Sharoni, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Merrimack College in Massachusetts.  When Professor Sharoni courteously asked her fellow riders what floor they needed, Lebow joked “Ladies lingerie, please.”

And that’s where the “courtesy” ended.

Sharoni claims she was offended by the joke, as well as the laughter of the “white, middle-aged men” on the elevator.   In her formal complaint to the International Studies Association, the organization hosting the conference, Sharoni said: “After they walked out, the woman standing next to me turned to me and said, ‘I wonder if we should have told them that it is no longer acceptable to make these jokes!'”

The ISA responded to Lebow’s lame joke, not with an eye roll, but with a rebuke. They ordered him to apologize for his “offensive and inappropriate” remark. When he refused, they formally censured him.

Now the story has taken another turn, as recounted by Professor Lebow in the Valley News:

 “I discovered that she [Professor Sharoni] had not grown up in either the U.S. or U.K. — where saying “ladies’ lingerie” in an elevator is a well-known gag line — so I explained in the same email the meaning of my remark and how it was in no way directed against women.

I further suggested that I considered a complaint of the kind she made damaging to efforts of women to combat serious and unacceptable mistreatment.

She complained to the ISA, this time about my having contacted her, and I was censured a second time.

Comedy is in the eye of the beholder and it may be that Professor Sharoni simply didn’t like Lebow’s attempt at humor. But why complain over an attempt by the gentleman to explain the comment and clear up any confusion over its offensiveness? Complaining the first time was embarrassing enough. Why complain again?

And–a more significant question–why would an (allegedly) serious academic institution like the ISA pile on with a second censure?  Professor Lebow has a theory:

“What ISA officials want is not an apology but a capitulation….giving in to their demands would further chill free speech among younger colleagues and students who are far more vulnerable than I am to sanction by their professional organization.”

Somebody in this story is getting bullied. How many people believe it’s the gender-studies professor from Massachusetts?

It’s not often that the New Hampshire Legislature proposes a law that goes against a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But that’s what Rep. Robert L’Heureux’s bill on flag desecration did.

The Merrimack Republican introduced House Bill 532 in the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee on Wednesday, which would have prohibited a person who desecrates a United States flag or New Hampshire state flag from receiving financial assistance from the state, including, but not limited to, “financial assistance to needy families, food stamps, and tuition assistance.”

“All we have to do is watch the news on tv and you see the American flag being burned, trampled on, and desecrated,” L’Heureux testified before the committee. “I fully agree and support freedom of speech. However, I don’t think I, as a private citizen or individual, should financially support someone who refuses to accept what we stand for.”

He said he understood that this bill was likely not going to pass and attorneys told him that it’s illegal. In fact, the bill received an “inexpedient to legislate” on a 18-1 vote. Two representatives switched their vote to go against the bill after the committee first voted on whether it “ought to pass.” Rep. Donald LeBrun, R-Nashua, was the only representative to fully support the bill after two rounds of voting.

Even though L’Heureux knew the bill was going to fail, he said he was trying to raise awareness for an issue.

“When we meet veterans and veteran survivors, we need to be able to tell them that we’ve done everything we can within the scope of the law,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman (1990) that due to the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional, including federal, state or municipalities, to prohibit the desecration of a flag due to its status as “symbolic speech.”

However, restrictions may be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of flag desecration. For example, if the flag that was burned was someone else’s property, they could be charged for petty larceny or with destruction of property.

There have been several proposed Flag Desecration Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which would allow Congress to enact laws prohibiting the act. To be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of those present in both chambers and be ratified by at least three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

The closest the amendment ever came to getting through Congress was in 2006, when the House passed a resolution 286-130, but it fell short in the Senate by one vote, 66-34. The Republican nay votes included Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Despite flag desecration being illegal, an Associated Press analysis shows at least 40 states still have them, punishing those who burn or damage the U.S. flag or even state flags with fines and jail time. At least eight people have been arrested since 2007 for burning a flag while walking in traffic or hanging a torn flag from a tree. There are also some Southern states that extend the law to Confederate flags.

But a lot of lawmakers don’t see the need to remove the law from the books because it could be seen as politically motivated even though it’s already been illegal according to the highest court. Arkansas, Connecticut, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have been the only states that took any action to get rid of their flag-desecration laws. Alaska, Wyoming, and Wisconsin don’t have any laws about it.

Opponents of the proposed New Hampshire law found problems that it went against a Supreme Court decision, but also that it would take away state financial assistance from people.

“The fundamental problem with this bill is that is constitutes viewpoint discrimination,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The state can’t withhold that benefit on the basis of someone’s viewpoint. You don’t lose your free speech rights when obtaining government assistance.”

Despite knowing that the bill was illegal, many Republican representatives agreed with the sentiment of the bill, and made that known throughout the hearing.

Rep. Mark Pearson, R-Hampstead, said the ACLU supports colleges and students that want “trigger warnings” to be included on class syllabi or on campus, so why shouldn’t they support people who find flag burning trigger-worthy?

Rep. Martin Bove, R-Londonderry, asked if he were to burn a Mexican or Saudi Arabian flag, would that be considered hate speech?

Bissonnette said the ACLU would consider that free speech.

Sarah Mattson Dustin, policy director for NH Legal Assistance, said the bill targeted low-income families who might not have alternative methods to disposing of flags in a proper manner.

“The bill would prohibit financial assistance that is not limited to Medicaid and other programs,” she said. “When you think about that in context, you think about someone in their youth, should we prohibit them from receiving these programs later in life?”

Mattson Dustin said one of her biggest issues with the bill was that the language was vague.

“The bill does seem directed toward people who are receiving assistance programs, and I don’t know it could apply to someone who would get a state contract,” she said. “The language is very broad.”

L’Heureux said he would be supportive if the committee drafted a resolution saying they believe flag desecration is un-American, and it was subsequently passed in both chambers of the Legislature. Or he would wait until the Supreme Court decision was overturned. Either way, he said he wasn’t done pushing this issue.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders held their respective rallies at the University of New Hampshire this past year, Joshua Fox and other members of the UNH College Republicans wanted to stand outside the venue, hold signs, and protest.

When they were protesting, a police officer approached them and told them they needed to move to a “free speech zone” because they could potentially cause some safety problems. Fox, a sophomore at the public university, said they were forced into a small area to carry out the rest of their protest, farther away from where people were waiting to enter the rally.

“A diversity of opinions is important to college,” he testified during a House Education Committee hearing in Concord on Tuesday. “I believe every American should have their right to speak their opinion.”

UNH says presidential candidates and their Secret Service teams are allowed to put some policies in place that the university would not normally do.

But Fox said he still believes universities and colleges sometimes go too far in stifling free speech.

He supports House Bill 477 that would limit “the ability of an institution within the university system or community college system to restrict a student’s right to speak in a public forum.”

The bill states that no university or college that receives state funds “shall restrict a student’s right to speak, including verbal speech, holding a sign, or distributing fliers or other materials, in a public forum.”

Rep. Eric Schleien, R-Hudson, is the prime sponsor of the bill, which has five other cosponsors on it — all Republicans. But he said this bill shouldn’t be a partisan bill.

“The broader principle is if I am a student at a public university or college, I shouldn’t have to ask people for permission to hand out a flyer,” Schleien said.

He is referring to UNH’s policy on students needing a permit to “distribute literature” and for “outdoor assemblies.”

“Individual students and non-students who wish to solicit for contributions, distribute literature…and engage in sequential, incidental, brief and transitory verbal interactions with passersby on the sidewalks and in the parking lots on campus must first obtain a permit from the University of New Hampshire Police Department,” states Section 23.2 of UNH’s administrative rules and regulations.

That’s where Joe Cohen, legislative and policy director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has a problem.

He doesn’t believe students should have to get a permit to assemble a protest or pass out flyers to passersby. He also said having the police in charge of the permitting process is a problem.

“We’re not really changing the law in anyway,” he said. “We’re just changing the mechanism to give students the power to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

According to FIRE, most public colleges and universities in the Granite State do not have a high “speech code rating.”

Only Plymouth State College has a “green light” rating — when a college does not “seriously imperil speech.”

UNH and Dartmouth College received a “yellow light” rating. That’s when an institution’s policies “restrict a more limited amount of protected expression or, by virtue of their vague wording, could too easily be used to restrict protected expression.”

Keene State College received a “red light” rating, which “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”

Cohen criticized the state’s college and university system for not having uniform free speech policies. He believes this bill will help fill that gap.

Reports of free speech violations on college campuses have reached national media outlets in the past year. One of the most recent incidents was at Kellogg Community College in Michigan where members of the Young Americans for Liberty chapter are suing the school after they were arrested in September for passing out pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution without administrative permission.

While no incidents like that have been reported in New Hampshire, the Granite State public universities have seen an increase in hate crimes in the past year. A swastika was burned into the ceiling of a Keene State College dorm and at UNH. President Mark Huddleston said several students and staff had experienced harassment or threats.

Educators on New Hampshire college campuses have been trying to have an open dialogue with students about where freedom of expression ends and hate speech begins.

But Karyl Martin, assistant general counsel for UNH, said the new bill on free speech could be seen as redundant since students are already allowed freedom of speech in the First Amendment and some restrictions exist to keep students safe.

“The safety and health concerns are real,” she said. “The permitting notice allows them [the university] to be flexible to needs of the students.”

Lawmakers were also critical of the law, asking if there were any limits to free speech on college campuses.

Schleien said the courts would ultimately decide what limits exist when they interpret the law.

But Martin said it’s difficult to legislate what are reasonable restrictions.

“It also puts the expense of litigating these issues on the taxpayers when they go to court,” she said. “It would ultimately end up on them and the students.”

THE EDELBLUT WILD CARD

This isn’t the first time a bill like this appeared before the committee. In the last legislative session, former Rep. Frank Edelblut, R-Windham, introduced a similar bill (House Bill 1561) that ultimately didn’t make it out of committee.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Executive Councilor Chris Sununu, right, and state Rep. Frank Edelblut shake hands during a news conference in front of the Statehouse Wednesday Sept. 14, 2016 in Concord, N.H. Edelblut conceded the race for the Republican nomination for governor after Sununu won by fewer than 1,000 votes. He will run against his Democratic primary winner fellow Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

The main differences between the two pieces of legislation are that the 2016 bill included a clause for “spontaneous and contemporaneous” demonstration. Cohen said he would prefer that to be in the current legislation, but UNH says that could lead to more costs.

Last year, the committee referred the legislation for interim study to look more at what the cost would be for the public university and college systems.

They claimed that the law could increase costs due to litigations and a change in their current permitting system, including additional funds for police officers for those spontaneous protests.

The bill was not recommended for future legislation.

Now, without the spontaneous clause, maybe the bill has a fighting chance. Especially, with the Edelblut wild card.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu recently nominated Edelblut, who also came in a close second to Sununu in the Republican gubernatorial primary last year, to be the next state education commissioner. As education commissioner, he helps set the tone of the department and implement policy for K-12 education, as well as higher education, which includes the state universities and colleges.

His nomination is already controversial since he doesn’t come from an education background. But now that it’s likely he will be approved by the Republican-controlled Executive Council, Edelblut could help push this legislation forward. After all, he was the one who first proposed it last year.

With Edelblut in Sununu’s ear, he could give this bill a nudge forward in the Legislature.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.