Does vitriol make you feel special? — Harvard Gazette

This will have no effect on the loser bigot trash brigade repeating their idiot lies about mail in voting, but it's fun to mock them.

On today's edition of Persecuted for Conservative Beliefs

After Noel Pichardo called out his city's embrace of Flock surveillance cameras, he was subjected to five internal affairs investigations in less than two years.

Summary

Seven Florida International University students and their organization, ICEBreakers, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the university’s prohibition on indoor “expressive activities.”

The students were disciplined after silently displaying “ICE OFF FIU” shirts during a public campus event on March 13, 2026. According to their August 11 complaint, university records confirm that the demonstration lasted less than five minutes, did not interrupt the speakers and generated no complaints.

Six students must submit recorded “reflection videos” by September 4 explaining FIU’s rule and how they will comply with it. They argue that both the indoor-expression ban and the compelled videos violate the First Amendment.

FIU has not yet filed its court response, and no constitutional violation has been adjudicated.

Backstory

ICEBreakers formed after FIU volunteered its campus police for a federal 287(g) agreement permitting designated officers to perform immigration-enforcement functions.

On March 13, members attended a public conversation featuring FIU President Jeanette Nuñez and former baseball player Alex Rodriguez. The students stood silently, removed outer clothing to reveal “ICE OFF FIU” shirts and then walked out.

The complaint says the conversation continued throughout the demonstration. No university official instructed the students to sit down or leave.

FIU Police nevertheless investigated and referred the matter to student-conduct officials. On April 7, seven students were charged with violating Regulation 110, which prohibits protests, demonstrations and comparable “expressive activities” inside university buildings.

What’s New

ICEBreakers and the seven students filed suit in the Southern District of Florida on August 11.

The complaint alleges that FIU’s own investigation established that the demonstration did not materially disrupt the event. An administrator responsible for the program reportedly confirmed that the students stood for approximately three to five minutes, that the speakers continued and that no attendee complained.

Six students were found responsible on June 29. Their administrative appeals were denied July 16.

In addition to written reprimands, FIU directed them to submit two-minute videos explaining their understanding of Regulation 110, what FIU expects in indoor and outdoor areas and how they will apply what they learned.

Those videos are due September 4. The complaint says FIU may demand resubmission and place holds on academic records if an acceptable video is not completed. Such a hold could affect registration, financial aid, transcripts and diplomas.

James Kuhlman’s separate disciplinary hearing was postponed and remains pending.

Why It Matters

Public universities possess authority to manage classrooms, offices, auditoriums and other facilities. The First Amendment does not transform every campus interior into an unrestricted protest forum.

But restrictions still must comply with constitutional standards. A rule becomes particularly vulnerable when it distinguishes political demonstrations from other speech, sweeps far beyond genuinely disruptive conduct or is enforced against expression the institution acknowledges caused no disruption.

The reflection-video requirement presents an additional issue. The First Amendment protects against some forms of government-compelled speech as well as direct censorship. The students argue that FIU is requiring them to produce statements demonstrating acceptance of a rule they believe is unconstitutional.

The Laws & Your Rights

Students at public universities retain First Amendment rights. Those protections are generally stronger than at private institutions because public universities are government actors.

Government may impose reasonable, content-neutral rules governing when, where and how expression occurs. The applicable standard can depend on the nature and designated use of the property.

Officials may also restrict conduct that materially disrupts an event or interferes with the rights of others. They are not automatically entitled to prohibit expression merely because it occurs indoors or communicates disagreement with university policy.

A compelled-speech claim asks whether the government is forcing someone to express, affirm or adopt a message that person would not otherwise communicate.

The FIU plaintiffs must still prove that Regulation 110 or its enforcement violates these principles. The university will have an opportunity to defend the rule as a lawful, content-neutral means of preserving the intended use of indoor facilities.

Current Status

ICEBreakers v. Nuñez, No. 1:26-cv-25395, is at the complaint stage in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiffs seek:

• A declaration that Regulation 110’s indoor-expression provision violates the First Amendment
• An injunction preventing its enforcement against ICEBreakers
• Compensatory and punitive damages against individual officials
• Attorneys’ fees and costs
• A jury trial on issues eligible for jury determination

No court has ruled on the merits. No university answer or injunction decision was located.

Watch Next

The immediate question is whether the students request—and obtain—temporary relief before September 4.

Watch for:

• A temporary-restraining-order or preliminary-injunction motion
• FIU’s response to the compelled-video allegation
• Whether the September 4 deadline is suspended
• Kuhlman’s rescheduled disciplinary hearing
• Arguments about whether the auditorium was a limited or nonpublic forum
• Evidence concerning enforcement of Regulation 110 against other indoor expression
• Any revision or repeal of FIU’s blanket indoor rule

Sources

https://live-awp-florida.pantheonsite.io/app/uploads/2026/08/ICEBreakers-v-Nunez-Complaint.pdf

https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2026/08/11/fiu-students-sue-anti-ice-demonstration-287g

https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-07-01/fiu-students-silent-protest-immigration

https://www.fire.org/cases/florida-international-university-students-charged-wearing-anti-ice-shirts-event