Campus Speech and Protest Restrictions: HB 240 Fact Sheet

The law primarily deals with students’ speech and expressive activities, which include outside speakers invited by students or student groups to university or campus events. It will also have an impact on administrators and may affect faculty. The new law:

Bans limits on protected speech in outdoor and “generally accessible” areas of campus. Protected speech here means the kind of speech and expression outlined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and in Section 9 Article I of the Idaho Constitution. In practical terms, this means colleges can’t have “Free Speech Zones” (which implicitly restrict some speech in other areas of campus), nor can they establish campuswide policies related to speech that are more detailed or specific than current Idaho and US speech law.  

Redefines harassment. The law modifies the legal definition of harassment in ways that will change what kinds of speech is allowed or “protected.” In a general legal context, harassment means behavior, expression, or speech that causes annoyance, alarm, or substantial emotional distress. Typically, universities craft policies that limit speech that could be considered harassment, often to balance the speech rights and safety of the campus community.  

• Under the new law, however, harassment has a much narrower meaning. Here, the law says speech qualifies as harassment only when it denies equal access to education by being unwelcome, severe, pervasive, subjectively and objectively offensive.
• It is possible the new, narrower definition of harassment will lead to discriminatory, inflammatory or threatening speech. It is likely that even clearly hostile speech is unlikely to meet the required threshold of harassment (i.e., denying equal access to education) as written in HB 240.

Allows reasonable speech limits on campus. To be reasonable, limits to speech must 1) be content-neutral; 2) narrowly tailored; 3) serve a significant government interest; and 4) leave open alternative channels of expression:  

• Content-neutral here means that policies can limit when, where, and how expressive activities happen, but cannot limit the kinds of things said (or the content of the speech itself). Limitations on when, where, and how speech happens are sometimes called “time, place, and manner” restrictions. 
• To be narrowly tailored, speech restrictions must be very carefully designed to meet a specific goal, like public safety, without unnecessarily limiting speech.  
• Speech limits must have a substantial benefit; they must serve a significant government interest. This means that in addition to proving speech restrictions will lead to a certain goal (e.g., public safety), the government must also explain its interest in that goal.  
• Finally, speech restrictions must leave open alternative ways for people to express themselves. A blanket ban against flying certain flags, for example, violates speech rights because flags hold significant symbolic meaning, and are often used to communicate political speech. And because it is unclear that other forms of expressive activity (e.g., wearing a pin) sufficiently effectuate the same level of speech, blanket flag bans are unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of symbolic speech.  

Bans security fees for risky or otherwise controversial speakers. Because speech rights are fundamental (and play an important role in academic freedom), campuses are obligated to allow speakers on campus, regardless of their viewpoints.

• The wide allowance for potentially threatening speakers is aligned with the First Amendment, but does require universities to maintain policies that carefully balance the right to expression with the right of the college community to feel safe. The broad allowance for even controversial speech has also informed important legal precedent; typically, colleges cover the cost related to anticipated reactions and threats of harm associated with controversial speakers, and may charge security fees to student groups that invite or otherwise organize such visits.
• Under the new law, colleges are barred from charging students with security fees for risky speakers and other guests on campus, potentially threatening the institutions’ obligation to balance speech and safety, ability to maintain a welcoming campus environment and possibly student safety.

Requires internal harassment policies. The law doesn’t offer further guidance about what such policies should permit or include, which may mean universities are better able to balance speech and safety concerns. Alternatively, it could mean decidedly unbalanced speech and safety protections on campus. 

• The unpredictability here is because HB 240 is complicated by two other laws passed in 2025: one that eliminates bias reporting systems (see SB 1198) and another that eliminates external nondiscrimination compliance (see HB 141). Taken together, it is possible this suite of 2025 laws will make campus environments less welcoming or safe for students of color, queer students, political or religious minorities, and other targeted and minoritized groups.

Requires speech policy. The law’s prescriptive requirements about speech and assembly and narrowing of what counts as harassment could lead to an increase in harmful and even hostile learning environments. Universities, fearing noncompliance, may avoid restricting harmful speech in ways that threaten the safety of the campus community.  

Student rights. Students and student organizations still have speech and assembly rights, even with the implementation of HB 240, although protest has additional risks in our current political moment. Your campus may have issued new guidance about protest and speech, and it’s a good idea to familiarize yourself with that policy. There are resources available online from universities like Yale; other organizations have Know Your Rights materials for students, as does the ACLU. These resources are also useful for understanding the risks associated with protest, helping you make choices about your level of involvement.  

If you or your student group is having difficulty organizing or enacting political or other kinds of speech and assembly demonstrations, you can file a report through your school or report the incident elsewhere, including with the ACLU of Idaho.

Broader campus community rights. Although the bill is focused on student speech, faculty and staff speech rights could be indirectly affected if university policies meant to enforce these regulations end up extending to employees. Faculty might face pressure to curtail their own expressions of opinion or to avoid controversial topics in class or public speaking engagements due to fear of violating the law. It’s a good idea for faculty and staff to familiarize themselves with campus speech policy, and other know your rights resources related to speech and protest on campus.

Familiarize yourself with campus speech policy. The bill’s language on "protected expressive activity" is broad, but some terms, like "disruption" or "harassment," are open to interpretation. This vagueness could lead to inconsistent enforcement of the law, where some students or groups might face disciplinary actions while others do not, depending on who interprets the restrictions. It is therefore important to read and understand your university’s speech and protest policy. If you are planning a protest on campus, participants should be familiar with the policy.

Know your rights when interacting with law enforcement. In addition to understanding your rights, the risks involved with protest, and your campus policies, you should understand your rights when interacting with law enforcement. Resources are available online, and local organizations in Idaho sometimes host in-person police interaction trainings. Follow the ACLU of Idaho on social media to stay informed about local law enforcement interaction trainings.