First Amendment
Free Speech Group Demands Pensacola State College Lift Censorship of Student Magazine
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression says the college’s ban on three student-written stories about queer culture—justified by administrators as compliance with the Stop WOKE Act—constitutes unconstitutional prior restraint and violates a professor’s academic freedom.
A national free speech organization has set a tight deadline for Pensacola State College to reverse what it calls an act of unconstitutional censorship against student journalists.
- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sent a letter dated May 1, 2026, to PSC President C. Edward Meadows is demanding that the college rescind its suppression of three student-written articles about queer culture that administrators blocked from a class magazine—citing the state’s Stop WOKE Act as justification.
FIRE gave PSC until the close of business today, May 4, to respond. Read FIRE Letter to Pensacola State College, May 1, 2026.
What Happened
Students in a joint reporting and graphic design course were producing an arts-and-culture magazine as a collaborative class assignment. Three of the planned pieces covered queer-related community topics: a profile of drag queen Vixen Valentine, a feature on the queer bookstore Perfect Day Books, and a story about Pensacola Poets and the café that hosts their open mic nights.
On April 29, 2026, Brenda Kelly—General Studies Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs—met with Professor Marisa Mills and told her the three stories could not be published. Kelly cited the Stop WOKE Act, specifically provisions prohibiting colleges from funding advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and from delivering instruction that “espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels” students to adopt certain viewpoints.
FIRE’s letter calls the administration’s intervention “a textbook example of a prior restraint,” which it describes as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on freedom of expression.
FIRE’s Legal Arguments
FIRE’s letter attacks the censorship on multiple fronts:
- Prior restraint: Courts have consistently struck down government efforts to suppress speech before publication, even in cases involving classified national security documents. FIRE argues PSC’s rationale falls far short of any standard that would justify such action.
- Academic freedom: Administrators entering a classroom to order a professor to censor student work violates First Amendment protections for faculty pedagogy. The letter cites the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Constitution “does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”
- Misreading the statute: Even taking the Stop WOKE Act at face value, FIRE argues PSC’s reading doesn’t hold up. Section 1004.06 bars colleges from funding programs that engage in pro-DEI advocacy, but not from publishing student journalism that covers LGBT+ community topics, among others. The letter puts it plainly: three pieces on queer culture no more make the magazine a DEI advocacy organ than three restaurant reviews make the New York Times an official food critic.
- No evidence of discrimination: The Stop WOKE Act’s anti-discrimination provisions (Section 1000.05) prohibit instructors from subjecting students to viewpoint-coercive training—not from assigning reporting on community subjects. FIRE says there is no evidence Mills or her students violated this provision.
Personal Liability Warning
FIRE’s letter closes with a pointed warning to administrators: A public college official who violates clearly established constitutional law cannot claim qualified immunity and may be held personally liable for monetary damages. The letter cites both Supreme Court precedent and an Eighth Circuit ruling in which a university administrator was denied qualified immunity for violating student First Amendment rights.
Background: Stop WOKE Act Litigation
FIRE has been challenging the Stop WOKE Act in federal court since 2022, arguing the law constitutes viewpoint discrimination and infringes on academic freedom. A federal district court in the Northern District of Florida previously enjoined enforcement of the law against the State University System Board of Governors, calling its restrictions “dystopian.” PSC, as a Florida College System institution, operates under separate but parallel statutory provisions.
Developing Story
Inweekly has requested an official response from Pensacola State College and has reached out to FIRE for additional comment. This story will be updated as responses are received.
The FIRE letter was signed by Dominic Coletti, Program Officer for Campus Rights Advocacy, and copied to Kelly and Mike Will, English and Communications Department Head.