F**k the 1
st Amendment!
That is what Tennessee legislators just did. You can now be arrested for protesting an anti-LGBTQ+ speaker. Apparently, you can protest all the pro-LGBTQ+ speakers you want... but speak out against an anti-LGBTQ+ speaker, and it’s jail time for you!
Tennessee lawmakers passed the so-called “Charlie Kirk Act” on Wednesday (15 April), a sweeping bill that could see students and faculty disciplined, or even expelled, for protesting speakers on campus over anti-LGBTQ+ views.
PinkNews
Written by Siân Thompson
April 16, 2026
The legislation would bar Tennessee colleges and universities from restricting invited speakers based on their views, explicitly protecting “opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender behaviour”.
The bill is now headed to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for signature. Once signed, the policies outlined in the bill will take effect immediately; the rest of the bill’s provisions will take effect on 1 July.
Under the bill, common forms of protest such as walkouts, chanting, or holding signs that obstruct views could be deemed disruptive and punished with probation, suspension, or expulsion.
And then when I see wording like this:
Institutions will also be required to adopt the University of Chicago’s free expression policy, which prioritises open debate over shielding students from harmful or inflammatory rhetoric.
I wonder: who decides what is "harmful or inflammatory rhetoric"?
WKRN
by: Kelly Milan
Apr 15, 2026
The Charlie Kirk Act is now on its way to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk after passing along party lines. Supporters frame it as a necessary guardrail for free speech on public college campuses. Critics warn it may do the opposite.
At its core, the legislation targets student behavior during campus events. Under the proposal, students who interrupt invited speakers, whether through walkouts or demonstrations, could face suspension or expulsion.
State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) argues the bill ensures speakers can be heard without interference, calling it a defense of “civil, robust debate” under the First Amendment.
The Charlie Kirk Act is now on its way to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk after passing along party lines. Supporters frame it as a necessary guardrail for free speech on public college campuses. Critics warn it may do the opposite.
At its core, the legislation targets student behavior during campus events. Under the proposal, students who interrupt invited speakers, whether through walkouts or demonstrations, could face suspension or expulsion.
State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) argues the bill ensures speakers can be heard without interference, calling it a defense of “civil, robust debate” under the First Amendment.
This squelches... "abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly"
What makes this bill biased?
“Any attendee or speaker can sue if these uninterrupted disruptions happen and because it requires discipline, a speaker could sue the university if the university doesn’t follow through with punishments,” Shahverdian said. “This opens up the floodgates really to lawsuits, potentially even invites them in.”
They are only targeting protests against anti-LGBTQ+ speakers! I am not a lawyer, but even I can see this bill is targeted, and courts generally hate that. I can imagine a judge’s first question: "What about protests against pro-LGBTQ+ rallies?"
What can we do?
First, remember that when they sue, it opens them up to discovery for all correspondence related to the case (except for attorney-client privileged communications). Furthermore, they carry the burden of proof to show that a disruption was "substantial."
Second, challenge the law for being too vague!
Third, counter-sue! Sue them for infringing on your Constitutional First Amendment rights and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tie them up in court. This tactic goes back to the 1950s and 60s with the Greensboro Four and the lunch counter sit-ins, where the strategy of institutional saturation was used to overwhelm the system.
If they sue 100 protesters, and those protesters counter-sue for $100,000 each, that is $10 million in play. If a speaker sues 100 people, they have to prove individually what each person did. They will have to get on the stand and swear under oath exactly how one specific person—not the group, but that individual—disrupted the speech. By counter-suing, protesters shift the narrative: "The government and the speaker are weaponizing the law to bankrupt students."
The legislators knew we could use Anti-SLAPP laws, so the Republicans added text specifically stating that actions brought under this act are not subject to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). They stacked the deck against us.
But we don’t need the TPPA; we can fight back with the full weight of the Constitution!
"You don't know what privilege is until you have to fight for it in court."
