The Wisconsin Legislature has approved two Republican-backed bills aimed at strengthening free speech protections at public university campuses and limiting certain fees associated with online coursework, sending the measures to Tony Evers for review.
One of the proposals, Senate Bill 498 (and its Assembly companion AB 501), would prohibit institutions within the University of Wisconsin System and the state’s technical colleges from placing restrictions on lawful free speech activities through time, place, or manner regulations. The bill passed the Assembly on a 53–45 vote after previously clearing the Senate. Under the measure, universities would also be barred from designating so-called “free speech zones” or imposing security fees that critics argue can effectively discourage or limit expression. If a campus is found to have violated the law’s protections multiple times within a five-year span, the legislation would impose a two-year freeze on tuition increases at that institution.
Supporters contend the bill reinforces First Amendment protections and ensures that campus policies do not chill lawful speech. Opponents, however, have questioned how the law would be enforced and raised concerns about potential legal disputes that could arise if institutions attempt to balance safety and expressive rights.
The second measure, Senate Bill 532, also passed along narrow party-line margins, receiving a 53–45 vote in the Assembly and an 18–15 vote in the Senate. The bill would restrict the University of Wisconsin from charging additional fees for online or hybrid courses unless administrators can clearly demonstrate that those formats incur genuine extra costs. Backers argue the proposal promotes transparency and shields students from what they describe as hidden or unnecessary charges, while critics warn it could limit flexibility in course delivery and budgeting.
The debate over the legislation follows findings from a survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which reported that roughly one in three college students believe violence can be an acceptable response to speech they find offensive or disagreeable. In a statement referencing attitudes at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the organization argued that such views point to a broader civility issue on campus and said the legislation would codify and enforce the university system’s existing free speech policies.
The measures also arrive amid heightened national attention surrounding campus speech and political activism. That attention intensified following the fatal shooting of conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk on a Utah college campus on Sept. 10. Authorities allege that 22-year-old Tyler Robinson carried out the attack. According to statements from relatives cited in reports, Robinson had allegedly become increasingly radicalized in his political views prior to the incident.
Robinson faces seven charges, including six felony counts such as aggravated murder, multiple counts of witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. If convicted on the most serious charge, he could face life imprisonment or potentially the death penalty. Jeff Gray, the Utah County Attorney, has formally filed notice of intent to pursue capital punishment if a conviction is secured.
Speaking during a briefing last month, Kash Patel, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said investigators continue to pursue all available leads. He emphasized that authorities are focused on a thorough fact-based investigation and on ensuring accountability under the law.
Robinson made his first in-person court appearance in mid-December, having previously attended hearings via video or audio link from jail. Since that appearance, many aspects of the case have proceeded under seal, limiting public access to filings and proceedings. A coalition of media organizations, including Fox News, has formally urged the court to provide greater transparency. The group requested that prosecutors and defense attorneys be required to give advance notice before seeking to seal documents or restrict public access, allowing interested parties the opportunity to challenge such requests before they take effect.
Legal analyst and California trial attorney Roger Bonakdar noted that concerns over transparency have been evident from the outset of the case. He observed that the degree of restricted access represents a significant shift compared to many other high-profile criminal proceedings, adding that ongoing scrutiny from media outlets may play a key role in shaping how much information ultimately becomes available to the public.
