Definitions and Background

Stanford is a private university, and its land is private property; this distinguishes it from public universities like the University of California. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”) is designed to protect speech from government restriction, and therefore is not directly applicable to Stanford as a private institution. However, California’s Leonard Law, Cal. Educ. Code § 94367, prohibits private colleges from making or enforcing rules subjecting students to discipline solely on the basis of speech that would be protected by the First Amendment or California Constitution if regulated by a public university. In addition, Stanford’s strong commitment to protecting freedom of expression leads it to apply many First Amendment concepts as a prudential matter even when the Leonard Law does not require it. A few of these concepts are defined below.

Content-based

Content-based restrictions on speech are those which limit expression based on the subject matter or topic. In First Amendment law, content-based restrictions trigger strict scrutiny because of concern that the government is trying to suppress disfavored ideas. Conversely, content-neutral rules are those that apply without regard to the content of speech.

Viewpoint-based

Viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are a particularly disfavored kind of content-based rule, in which expression of a particular viewpoint is restricted. An example of a content-based rule would be one that restricts any political statements by student organizations, regardless of what policies or politicians an organization supports; a viewpoint-based rule would be one that said student organizations may not issue statements in support of a specific political party or movement. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice (and Stanford alum) Anthony Kennedy wrote in an opinion in 2017, “[a] law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an ‘egregious form of content discrimination,’ which is ‘presumptively unconstitutional.’ … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.” 

Time, Place, and Manner

Time, place, and manner rules are content-neutral rules about when, where, and how speech may take place. For example, a limit on the hours during which amplified sound can be used in a given location would constitute a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction. They receive less scrutiny under the First Amendment because they are not based on content, but they are still expected to be based on legitimate reasons, to not restrict substantially more speech than necessary, and to leave open ample alternative channels for communication.