- 2 - Plaintiff Speech First, Inc. brings this action under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief and alleges as f ollows.

INTRODUCTION

1.

“The mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’”

Papish v. Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo

., 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973). After all, “[t]he college campus is peculiarly suited to serve as a marketplace of ideas and a forum for the robust exchange of different viewpoints.”

Solid Rock Found. v. Ohio State Univ

., 478 F. Supp. 96, 102 (S.D. Ohio 1979). 2.

Yet the University of Michigan (“the University”) and its officials have created an elaborate investigatory and disciplinary apparatus to suppress and punish speech other students deem “demeaning,” “bothersome,” or “hurtful.” This Court found the University’s previous iteration of a speech code to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

See Doe v. University of Michigan

, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989). The University’s latest attempts at censorship should fare no better. 3.

First, the University’s disciplinary code prohibits “harassment” and “bullying,” and further increases the potential penalties if such actions were motivated by “bias.” All of those concepts, as the University interprets and applies them, can capture staggering amounts of protected speech and expression. For example, the University defines “harassment” as “unwanted negative attention perceived

as