Uncensored America filed a lawsuit on Sept. 30 against the University of South Carolina, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. Five days earlier, the student senate decided to grant the organization’s request for funding, which had previously been denied in a Sept. 11 session.
The organization had requested $3,576.99 for their “roast” of Kamala Harris, which took place on Sept. 18 in the Russell House ballroom. The event featured controversial speakers Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes and drew criticism from many campus groups.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Winslow of Winslow Law, states the student senate’s decision on Sept. 11 to deny funding “seeks to prevent Plaintiff from hosting an event on Defendant’s campus based solely on the content and viewpoint.”
According to the complaint, the student senate’s previous decisions to fund groups with opposing views such as the NAACP, College Democrats of America and Students for Justice in Palestine demonstrated viewpoint discrimination.
“These student-led groups are similarly situated comparators and were granted funding only because, unlike Plaintiff, they expressed a viewpoint favored by the student government,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit’s legal standing could be affected by the fact that Uncensored America was not prevented from hosting the event, said Taylor Smith of Meriwether Law, an attorney for the South Carolina Press Association.
“The thing that is a little bit confusing to me, though, is that typically these claims under free speech violations arise from you not being able to express your views about something or you being arrested for expressing views,” he said.
The lawsuit requests a declaratory judgment that Uncensored America’s rights were violated, “appropriate injunctive relief,” compensatory and actual damages and an award for legal fees.
Smith said the declaratory judgment might be the best Uncensored America could hope for. If the student senate has given the organization the requested funds, the request for injunctive relief would not apply, he said.
The group’s ability to host the event also raises a concern for their request for compensatory and actual damages, Smith said.
“This is a case brought that their freedom of speech was violated by them choosing not to fund an event where they actually were able to have the event,” he said. “It seemed, from all indications I’ve read, that it went off without a hitch.”
Uncensored America will have to demonstrate that the denial of the money on Sept. 11 affected the group’s ability to express their views during the event, Smith said.
“If you have since received the funding, and it was the lack of funding that amounted to the prior restraint, how is it that their lack of funding changed the way (they) did the event that night? That’s not in this complaint,” he said.
Smith said the case appears to be about the recovery of the $3,576.99, and a court may not be able to grant that money if the organization already received it from the student senate.
Brendan Connors, the president of Uncensored America’s USC chapter, declined to comment on the lawsuit.
In a statement given after the group initially threatened to sue, university spokesperson Collyn Taylor said that USC cannot comment on any potential or pending litigation.
The student senate's second vote
The student senate revisited the funding bill during an executive session on Sept. 25, where it passed with unanimous consent, according to the senate’s journal.
Because the funds were eventually granted, the Student Government is in a better legal position, said Judiciary Committee Chairman Camden Kaye. By reversing their decision, they have reduced the lawsuit's legal standing, he said.
This reimbursement could be grounds to dismiss the case on mootness, Smith said.
“It’s a legal doctrine that basically says if you’ve already been provided the relief which a court can give you, you don’t have a case anymore,” Smith said. “Your case is dismissed. Because what is a judge going to do for you?”
Kaye had concerns over the senate’s Sept. 11 decision. Since Uncensored America had not broken any rules or laws, the senate would be obligated to fund them, he said in a period of debate during that session.
“So as for a purely legalistic viewpoint, we have … almost no reason (not) to fund them,” Kaye said in the session. “We may or may not agree with what they have to say, but ultimately that is not what we are here to do. What we’re here to do is uphold our rules.”
Kaye later filed a case with the Student Government’s constitutional council. His objective was to overturn the bill in order to protect Student Government and its senators, he said.
“I (wanted) to see if I would have standing to try and overturn this bill,” he said. “I didn't know what that looked like. I didn’t know whether they’d get the money back … It was just, I think we violated the codes. We have left ourselves open to lawsuits from not just UA but other entities.”
The Constitutional Council rejected his challenge on the grounds that Kaye’s rights were not violated, according to a memorandum from Sept. 24.
USC denies administration involvement
Courtney McClain, a USC alumna who advocated against the “roast” of Kamala Harris on Sept. 18, made an Instagram post which contained an anonymous statement from a student senator.
The post claimed that Kaye had filed a lawsuit against other senators and that “the board of trustees has communicated that failure to overturn this decision will result in the issuance of articles of impeachment and the revocation of funding in 2025.”
In a statement from Taylor, the university said that Kaye’s constitutional council case is not a lawsuit and denied any involvement of the board of trustees in the second vote.
“USC’s board of trustees was not at any point involved in this process,” the statement read. “There was no one (threatened) with articles of impeachment, nor were any mentioned, and there was never any threat of revoking funding.”
Taylor confirmed that the dean of students visited the student senate that day, but he could not reveal what the dean said during the executive session. Kaye also denied that the administration “strong armed” the senate.
“As far as I’m aware, I wasn’t contacted by basically anybody in administration, and I tend to know a lot about what goes on,” he said. “We just received legal counsel.”
Editor's Note: Marley Bassett, Eva Flowe, Emmy Ribero and Carrigan Woodson contributed to the reporting in this article.