College students who attempt to block people from speaking or protesting on campus would face stiff penalties under new bills in the state Senate.

The legislation, which applies to Michigan's 15 public universities and 28 community colleges, requires institutions to issue a one-year suspension or expulsion for students who have twice been found responsible for "infringing" upon the free-speech rights of others.

"People have converted our fundamental freedom of speech into a freedom from speech," said Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton, the lead sponsor of the legislation. He added: "Ultimately, there's people that are just trying to shut down any discussion of issues that they don't agree with."

The bills are opposed by the Michigan Association of State Universities, which argues the legislation is "unnecessary and duplicative" because free speech protections already exist in state and federal law.

Plus, universities - not the state Legislature - should set penalties for students engaged in improper behavior on campus, said Dan Hurley, the group's CEO.

"It clearly violates the university governing boards' constitutional right to govern their campuses," he said.

Known as the "campus free speech act," the legislation directs colleges and universities to develop a policy on free expression that's committed to fostering an open discourse on campus and does not shield students from controversial speakers or ideas, even those considered "deeply offensive."

In addition, the legislation says institutions should "strive to remain neutral" on the "public policy controversies of the day." Critics of the bill say colleges should be permitted to speak out on issues that impact operations, such as state budgets or President Donald Trump's proposed travel ban.

The bills are supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a campus free speech watchdog group. But Joe Cohn, the group's legislative and policy director, says a few "important but modest" improvements are needed.

One of those improvements: A more precise definition of what it means for a student to "infringe" upon another person's free speech rights.

Cohn said he agrees with sanctioning students who use violent or aggressive actions to shut down a speech or event on campus. But he said a student shouldn't be sanctioned simply for shouting out "boo" during a speech.

"The current bill doesn't describe how severe someone's actions need to be to infringe on someone's free speech rights," he said.

Colbeck said he introduced the legislation not because of one event but rather a "slow burn" where "incident after incident started building up to the point that I said 'enough is enough.'"

He pointed to remarks made by University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel made during a post-election vigil on campus following President Donald Trump's election.

During his remarks, Schlissel said then-candidate Hillary Clinton received strong support at the polls among students: "Ninety percent of you rejected the kind of hate and the fractiousness and the longing for some sort of idealized version of a nonexistent yesterday."

Colbeck said he doesn't want to take away Schlissel's freedom of speech, but added that "you've got to be careful that certain remarks aren't used to stifle other people's discussions." He said his legislation would ensure that students with "a different perspective" would have an opportunity to express their opinions as well.

The bills are modeled after a legislative proposal from The Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based libertarian think tank. Jennifer Tiedemann, a spokesperson for the group, said similar bills have been introduced in Colorado, Wisconsin, North Carolina and California.

It comes at a time when high-profile incidents regarding speech on campus have made national headlines.

Late last month, the University of California at Berkeley canceled a speech by controversial conservative commenter Ann Coulter because of safety concerns.

Protests at the university turned violent in February after a speech by another controversial figure, Milo Yiannopoulos, formerly of Breitbart news, was canceled. Six people were charged with with misdemeanor ordinance violations relating to "disorderly assemblages" when Yiannopoulous came to Michigan State University in December 2016.

While there haven't been any recent high-profile incidents of a public college or university in Michigan canceling an appearance of a controversial speaker, Colbeck argued institutions in the state are attempting to block or restrict speech.

He pointed to an incident at Grand Valley State University involving a so-called "free speech zone" on campus.

Last year, Grand Valley's student chapter of Turning Point USA filed a lawsuit against the university, claiming campus police threatened to arrest members of the group for talking with other students about the First Amendment outside of two designated "free speech zones."

The group, which promotes libertarian ideals, also complained that the university required students to gain approval before using the spaces.

In March, the university settled the lawsuit. It agreed to allow for free expression throughout campus as long as certain parameters weren't violated, such as blocking access to campus buildings or obstructing traffic.

A similar lawsuit was filed in January against Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek.

Under Colbeck's legislation, "all public areas on campus" would be "considered as areas for potential public forums that would be equally open on the same terms to any speaker," according to a news release.

"It's gone into very scary territory here," Colbeck said, "and it's antithetical to the freedoms that are guaranteed in our first amendment."

Michigan Community College Association President Mike Hansen said his organization has not yet taken a formal stance on the legislation but will be watching the bills as they move forward.

Kim Broekhuizen, a spokesperson for the University of Michigan, declined to comment, saying U-M doesn't weigh in publicly on "pending legislation as things often change dramatically along the way."

Hurley, of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said he wasn't immediately sure how many universities may have a "free speech zone." He said it's reasonable for universities to attempt to avoid "complete, unadulterated" freedom of expression when it would interrupt the "learning process of students."