Jewish news org claims First Amendment violations after school districts cancel speaking events

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A Jewish news outlet argued for its right to receive information under the First Amendment on Tuesday before a federal judge, who questioned how far that right could go.

Jewish Legal News sued Alameda Unified School District and Fremont Union High School District in November, after four Bay Area high schools canceled events that were to feature Luai Ahmed, a Yemeni-born, openly gay Muslim who advocates for Jewish-Muslim relations.

The outlet — which describes itself as media organization that covers antisemitism, educational policy and issues of free speech — say its First Amendment right to receive information was violated because they could not attend the event, nor interview students about their reactions after the event. The school districts canceled Ahmed’s events after protests by advocacy groups claimed Ahmed was a Zionist.

Pushing for dismissal, the school districts’ attorney David Mishook told U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen that Jewish Legal News didn’t have standing because it wasn’t directly injured by the canceled event.

Mishook said a school was a limited public forum and the event would have taken place during school hours, when First Amendment claims are generally “circumscribed” for student safety as well as time and authority constraints.

Furthermore, he said, the news organization was denied the opportunity to report on student reactions, but that wasn’t a protected right under the Constitution.

“It’s the reaction to that information that is far removed from any First Amendment application,” said Mishook.

“But is it too far?” asked Van Keulen.

Mishook said it was too far, and the plaintiff’s redressability was “nearly insurmountable.”

The nonprofit news company seeks to impose a broad “neutral viewpoint” policy at the schools, one that would most likely look like two speakers with opposing views. The policy, the plaintiff claims, would allow Ahmed’s events to be rescheduled and the districts would not be able to interfere with the scheduling.

“First Amendment standing is relaxed and can be extended to other people,” said plaintiff’s attorney Mark Javitch. “Here we have a news gathering situation so that satisfies standing.”

Van Keulen continued to question the “slippery slope” of who could possibly be protected under the plaintiff’s right to receive claims.

“Would the subscribers of Jewish Legal News” have a claim, she asked. “What about a book group that reviewed Jewish news?”

Javitch said those with the right to receive information could be broad, but the nonprofit was seeking specific relief.

Mishook countered the plaintiff’s idea of relief, saying it didn’t address the inability of the news organization to attend the event.

“It’s such a broad request that it is divorced by the actually issues here,” he said.

Van Keulen took the matter under consideration but didn’t indicate which way she was considering ruling.