The bits of the bill in question which are applicable:

---

"Expressive activities" means any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution, and includes assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written material, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions.

...

Each institution of higher education shall adopt a policy detailing rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities at the institution. The policy must:

...

Prohibit:

...

engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

---

That's pretty clear cut, to be honest. Like the article says, the intent is probably much more limited, but it literally says "any speech or conduct which is protected under the first amendment is banned". That's just really poor drafting indeed.

▲ bestouff 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Even if more limited, the intent is clearly anti-democratic.

▲ fuzzbazz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m

The intent may be also seen as pro-education: "they're free to protest elsewhere without annoying other students"

▲ JohnFen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's what noise ordinances are for, and noise ordinances still allow you to engage in free speech. You just have to keep it reasonably quiet during the night.

▲ _fs a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This you? What made your stance on this subject change?

  fuzzbazz 10 months ago | parent | context | prev | next  [–] | on: Brazilian court orders suspension of X

  How can you even have democracy without freedom of speech?
  How can you freely choose who to vote without free exchange of information?

	▲	Reubachi a day ago \| parent [-]
		OP did not at all imply they felt that way, rather was implying an argument on behalf of the drafters. God, this forum is becoming more like reddit every day with folks ignoring commenting rules and assuming bad faith. (of which ,I am doing myself right now.) this post doesn't even belong here.

▲ bananapub 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

why do you think it's poor drafting? there's a clear cross-country campaign by the American right that's seized control of many states and the federal government to end free speech as a concept by creating laws and regulations and policies like this, so that favoured groups can do whatever, and anyone who finds themselves disfavoured will be in violation of stuff like this.

	▲	camtarn 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the article answers this pretty well. The bill has text about not being construed as restricting any first amendment rights while simultaneously banning all 1A activity within certain hours. That just seems like a really stupid contradiction, and one that's likely to rile people up, compared to a drafting which just says "here are a list of protest activities which are allowed in the day and banned at night", which I feel was the intent of the bill.
	▲	jalapeno_b a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]