College Athletes and the Systems That Silence Them
Sports have long been an arena where civil rights and civil liberties questions have taken center stage: Track and field star Tommie Smith raised his fist for racial justice on the 1968 Olympic podium. Tennis great Billie Jean King fought for equal pay for women. Olympic runner Caster Semana challenged intersex bigotry to be able to compete. And of course, NBA players organized a strike this week in protest of the killing by police of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
But one group of athletes has often kept quiet during social movements: college athletes. This is largely because the institutions they play for silence them. At a time when racial justice conversations have ignited across the country, At Liberty took a look at how universities suppress their athletes' voices and the barriers to holding those universities accountable.
Joining us to talk about college athletes and free speech is Frank LoMonte, First Amendment lawyer and director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida, and Toren Young, a former football player at the University of Iowa.
Sports have long been an arena where civil rights and civil liberties questions have taken center stage: Track and field star Tommie Smith raised his fist for racial justice on the 1968 Olympic podium. Tennis great Billie Jean King fought for equa...
Sports have long been an arena where civil rights and civil liberties questions have taken center stage: Track and field star Tommie Smith raised his fist for racial justice on the 1968 Olympic podium. Tennis great Billie Jean King fought for equa...
Related 桃子视频
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Shortly After Filing, Government Upholds Catsonacouch Creator鈥檚 Right To Attend Vance Event Today. Explore Press Release.Shortly After Filing, Government Upholds CatsOnACouch Creator鈥檚 Right to Attend Vance Event Today
BREWER, Maine 鈥 In a victory for free speech, Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, was allowed to attend Vice President Vance鈥檚 official speaking engagement in Brewer, Maine today. McGonigle entered without interference after the 桃子视频and 桃子视频of Maine filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to allow her to attend future official vice-presidential events. The government agreed she could attend the event today in Maine, just like any other member of the public who registered. Given this agreement, the court denied the motion, and McGonigle successfully attended today鈥檚 event. 鈥淚 was just allowed entrance into Vice President Vance鈥檚 event after I sued the government for preventing me from entering the last public event he did in Maine," said Amanda McGonigle. 鈥淭he government can鈥檛 exclude me from official vice-presidential events otherwise open to the public just because I mock people in positions of power on the internet. I have as much right to attend these events as people who haven't called out the vice president for having the charisma of a soggy unsalted rice cake online.鈥 The filing comes after McGonigle registered to attend a vice-presidential event in Maine in May and complied with all advance guest guidance provided by the Executive Office of the President. While in line for the event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials identified her in the line and told her she wasn鈥檛 allowed in because 鈥渨e know where you stand.鈥 She was also denied guest details to attend an event that was open for registration by the public in Des Moines, Iowa. 鈥淭he First Amendment protects Amanda鈥檚 right to attend public vice-presidential events just like anyone else, no matter how many cat jokes she makes at the vice president鈥檚 expense,鈥 said Anahita Sotoohi, staff attorney with the 桃子视频 of Maine. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unfortunate that Amanda had to file a lawsuit to vindicate this right, but we are glad to see the federal government finally acknowledge and respect her right to attend the Brewer event. Amanda should also be able to attend similar events in the future. No matter who is in power, the Constitution protects every person鈥檚 right to publicly joke, mock, insult, and dissent.鈥 McGonigle filed suit earlier this summer to challenge the government鈥檚 retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination against her. McGonigle claimed that she was excluded from the May event in Bangor, Maine, and another event in Des Moines, because of commentary she posts on her social media accounts, which are dedicated to criticizing the Vice President. She launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance鈥檚 infamous 鈥渃hildless cat lady鈥 comment in 2024, and she says the purpose of the account is 鈥渢o have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.鈥 鈥淭he government cannot prohibit people from attending vice-presidential events on the basis of their protected speech,鈥 said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the 桃子视频. 鈥淲e鈥檙e glad the federal government recognized that Amanda has the right to attend today's Brewer event just like everyone else who registered, and we hope the government continues to stand down and not interfere with our client鈥檚 right to criticize and joke.鈥 The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Maine filed the suit on behalf of McGonigle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in early July. The complaint alleges that McGonigle鈥檚 First Amendment rights were violated when she was excluded from vice presidential events because of her speech and political views.Court Case: McGonigle v. CurranAffiliate: Maine -
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Catsonacouch Creator Asks Court To Allow Her To Attend Upcoming Vance Events. Explore Press Release.CatsOnACouch Creator Asks Court to Allow Her to Attend Upcoming Vance Events
PORTLAND, Maine 鈥 Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, asked the court today to step in to allow her to attend future official vice-presidential events, including Vice President Vance鈥檚 upcoming speaking engagement in Brewer, Maine on Monday, for which McGonigle registered. In May of this year, McGonigle registered to attend an official vice-presidential event in Bangor, Maine but was prevented from entering the event. While in line for that event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials called her out by name and told her she wasn鈥檛 allowed in because 鈥渨e know where you stand.鈥 McGonigle is asking a court today to ensure that she is able to attend future events, like the upcoming event in Brewer, without interference, so that she can listen to the Vice President鈥檚 remarks, express her views as an audience member, and report on the event for her millions of social media followers. 鈥淟ast time I went to Maine to hear what the Vice President had to say, I was singled out by armed guards and prohibited from attending,鈥 said Amanda McGonigle. 鈥淎ll I want is to attend these events in peace, just like all the other people in line who haven鈥檛 compared the Vice President to a sentient jar of mayonnaise online.鈥 McGonigle filed suit earlier this summer to challenge the government鈥檚 retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination against her. McGonigle claimed that she was excluded from the Bangor event, and another event in Des Moines, because of commentary she posts on her social media accounts, which are dedicated to criticizing the Vice President. She launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance鈥檚 infamous 鈥渃hildless cat lady鈥 comment in 2024, and she says the purpose of the account is 鈥渢o have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.鈥 鈥淣o matter who is in power, the Constitution protects our right to publicly joke, mock, insult, and dissent,鈥 said Anahita Sotoohi staff attorney with the 桃子视频 of Maine. 鈥淭he government is on notice that our client knows her First Amendment rights and will fight in court to enforce them. Using humor and satire to criticize elected officials is a long-standing tradition and the First Amendment secures Amanda鈥檚 right to continue in that tradition. It's a testament to the power of speech and the power of laughter that Vance is attempting to silence someone over a cat-themed social media account.鈥 The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Maine filed the suit on behalf of McGonigle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in early July. The complaint alleges that McGonigle鈥檚 First Amendment rights were violated when she was excluded from vice presidential events because of her speech and political views. 鈥淭he First Amendment protects our client鈥檚 criticism of the federal government as well as her satirical cat content,鈥 said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the 桃子视频. 鈥淢s. McGonigle has every right to register for and attend official vice-presidential events, just like any other member of the public.鈥 You can read today鈥檚 filing here, Amanda鈥檚 declaration here, and more about the case here.Court Case: McGonigle v. CurranAffiliate: Maine -
Press ReleaseAug 2026
Free Speech
Tribunal Federal De Apelaciones Invalida Un谩nimemente La Ley De Censura De Puerto Rico Aprobada Durante La Pandemia De Covid-19. Explore Press Release.Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones invalida un谩nimemente la ley de censura de Puerto Rico aprobada durante la pandemia de COVID-19
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico 鈥 En una decisi贸n un谩nime, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito de Estados Unidos anul贸 la ley de Puerto Rico de 2020 contra las llamadas "noticias falsas", al considerarla una regulaci贸n inconstitucional basada en el contenido que restringe la libertad de expresi贸n protegida. Dos periodistas impugnaron la ley, argumentando que amenazaba con coartar cualquier reportaje que pudiera perjudicar la imagen del gobierno durante una emergencia. "Como periodista independiente en Puerto Rico, mi trabajo es buscar la verdad y exigir responsabilidades a quienes ostentan el poder, especialmente cuando surge una crisis y el p煤blico necesita informaci贸n transparente y confiable", afirm贸 la periodista Sandra Rodr铆guez. 鈥淟a ley de 鈥榥oticias falsas鈥 de Puerto Rico era una amenaza constante. La decisi贸n de hoy del Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito es una victoria no solo para m铆 o la prensa, sino para todos los ciudadanos en Puerto Rico. Este fallo garantiza que podemos seguir haciendo nuestro trabajo 鈥攊nvestigando, cuestionando e informando鈥 sin temor a ser criminalizados por buscar la verdad鈥. 鈥淓ste caso va m谩s all谩 del ejercicio del periodismo. Esto atenta contra el significado mismo de vivir en una sociedad democr谩tica donde las personas tienen derecho a expresarse libremente sin temor a ser silenciadas por el Estado鈥, declar贸, por su parte, el periodista Rafelli Gonz谩lez Cotto. 鈥淎gradezco al tribunal por defender la Primera Enmienda no solo para los periodistas, sino para todos los ciudadanos de Puerto Rico鈥. La ley de Puerto Rico de 2020 tipificaba como delito dar a sabiendas una 鈥渇alsa alarma鈥 sobre cat谩strofes inminentes o transmitir a sabiendas informaci贸n falsa sobre cualquier tema cuando hacerlo resultara en un riesgo inminente para la seguridad, la salud o la propiedad. Quienes infringieran la ley se enfrentaban a penas de hasta tres a帽os de c谩rcel y una multa de hasta $5,000 d贸lares. "La funci贸n de vigilancia de la prensa nunca es m谩s importante ni est谩 m谩s en peligro que durante una emergencia", declar贸 Brian Hauss, subdirector del Proyecto de Libertad de Expresi贸n, Privacidad y Tecnolog铆a de la ACLU. "Agradecemos que el tribunal haya declarado inconstitucional esta ley de 'noticias falsas', que amenazaba con silenciar al periodismo independiente precisamente cuando la ciudadan铆a m谩s lo necesita". La demanda, presentada originalmente durante la crisis de salud por el COVID-19, fue interpuesta por la Uni贸n Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU) y la 桃子视频de Puerto Rico en nombre de dos periodistas, Sandra Rodr铆guez Cotto y Rafelli Gonz谩lez Cotto, quienes tem铆an que la ley se utilizara para castigarlos por su cobertura de emergencias p煤blicas, especialmente por reportajes que perjudicaran la imagen del gobierno. "Celebramos esta victoria que protege dos de nuestros derechos m谩s fundamentales: la libertad de prensa y la libertad de expresi贸n", afirm贸 Ferm铆n Arraiza Navas, director legal de la 桃子视频de Puerto Rico. "Esta ley nefasta, firmada inicialmente por el exgobernador Ricardo Rossell贸 y enmendada por una legislatura en decadencia con la aprobaci贸n de la gobernadora Wanda V谩zquez en La Fortaleza, solo ten铆a como norte criminalizar la disidencia y perseguir a la prensa en tiempos de emergencia por simplemente discrepar del discurso oficialista. No lo permitiremos". El 31 de marzo de 2023, el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Puerto Rico dict贸 una orden judicial permanente contra la ley, al considerar que su alcance excesivamente amplio conllevaba el riesgo de enjuiciamientos politizados y de coartar la libertad de expresi贸n protegida en asuntos de inter茅s p煤blico. Este martes, 4 de agosto, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito de los Estados Unidos confirm贸 la decisi贸n, dictaminando que la ley viola la Primera Enmienda porque impone una restricci贸n basada en el contenido a la libertad de expresi贸n protegida sin justificaci贸n suficiente. El tribunal se帽al贸 que la ley carece de las limitaciones esenciales incluidas en otras leyes sobre falsas alarmas, y que podr铆a utilizarse para procesar a quienes se oponen a la postura del gobierno en debates sobre temas controvertidos como la eficacia de las mascarillas durante la pandemia de COVID-19, as铆 como en relaci贸n con chistes, s谩tira o ficci贸n. Como escribi贸 el tribunal, la ley de Puerto Rico 鈥渞epresenta una restricci贸n inadmisible de la libertad de expresi贸n, especialmente en tiempos de emergencia, cuando es imperativo que el p煤blico est茅 bien informado y que el gobierno rinda cuentas鈥. 鈥淐on esta ley, el Gobierno de Puerto Rico puso en peligro el derecho a la libertad de expresi贸n y la libertad de prensa, protecciones que son cada vez m谩s indispensables鈥, declar贸 Annette Mart铆nez Orabona, directora ejecutiva de la 桃子视频de Puerto Rico. 鈥淓sto tambi茅n fue un intento de desalentar la fiscalizaci贸n justa y necesaria del gobierno, precisamente durante periodos de emergencia como el que Puerto Rico vive en la actualidad, con una crisis en el servicio de agua potable. Se trata de derechos que est谩n siendo atacados desde m煤ltiples frentes y que hoy logramos proteger鈥. Puedes leer la opini贸n aqu铆. Tambi茅n puedes leer m谩s sobre la ley aqu铆.Court Case: Rodr铆guez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-UrrutiaAffiliate: Puerto Rico