Putting aside the genesis of QI,it is, in theory, not a bad idea. The problem is that it has metastasized into the idea that state actors get freebies even in not close cases. Under the law, it is elementary that state actors cannot take harmful action against someone because they don’t like a Facebook post calling abortion murder. Judicial decisions such as these muddy the water and give comfort for even more outrageous actions.

This is why people who do these sorts of things should be prosecuted and sentenced to stiff prison terms. This one, I would say, merits at least a decade in prison.

Underlying the federal district judge’s ruling in the UNM case is the poisonous and misbegotten judicial doctrine of qualified immunity. Apparently no government employee can be held liable for any outrageous and illegal action if they claim to be sufficiently ignorant.

From the Volokh article cited above:

Hunt sued, and yesterday the federal district court rejected his First Amendment claim: University officials, the court said, were entitled to “qualified immunity” because any First Amendment protection against such restrictions on supposedly “inflammatory” speech by public university professional students wasn’t “clearly established” enough.

Qualified immunity: it’s not just for the police who beat you up because they didn’t like what you posted on Facebook; it’s also for the state university officials who threaten to throw you out because they don’t like what you posted on Faeebook.

Moral: don’t ever express any opinion anywhere that any state employee might not like.

At some point, what needs to happen in these public college discipline for free speech cases is that the local US Attorney obtain indictments for civil rights violations.