UNC fan’s lawsuit debates free speech

By Jordan Nash

Senior writer

The definition of free speech is the crux of a recent lawsuit involving UNC and a fan of UNC athletics.

The N.C. Court of Appeals upheld the University’s decision to indefinitely ban John Donnelly Jr. from all athletic events and facilities, according to court documents released Sept. 2.

The University banned Donnelly from athletic events Dec. 3, 2012.

According to the University’s response to Donnelly’s appeal of the ban, Donnelly repeatedly called the athletic department, made sexually suggestive comments to female athletic department employees and once showed up uninvited at an athlete’s personal residence.

“Some of these things are ridiculous (that) they are accusing me of,” Donnelly said.

The court decision states Donnelly participated in harassment, speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.

Harassment is any conduct directed at “a specific person that torments, terrorizes or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose,” according to the N.C. General Assembly.

“We hold that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he engaged in any speech protected by the First Amendment,” the court opinion states.

Kate Rech, Donnelly’s lawyer, disagrees with the court’s decision.

“Donnelly’s behavior was not harassing,” Rech said in an email. “To the contrary, he was and is an avid fan of UNC and, as a retired UNC alumnus, spent his time enjoying UNC sports.”

The University was represented by Attorney General Roy Cooper and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Tulchin.

The office of the attorney general declined to comment on the case.

One of the actions that led to the lifetime ban, according to court documents, included Donnelly making a comment about the length of a female employee’s shorts.

“I just mentioned to her, ‘I think that your shorts are shorter than they were yesterday,’” Donnelly said. “I don’t think that is sexual harassment ... that’s all I said to her.”

Rech said the comments were not classified as sexual harassment because the comments were not intimidatory.

“He was not threatening them, he was not impressing his opinions or ideas upon them, and there was no safety concern,” she said.

Rech wrote in the appellate brief that UNC athletic facilities should be classified as a limited public forum, which would mean the University can enforce regulations of speech only because of time, manner and place — not for content.

Rech said the University restricted Donnelly’s speech based on what it determined to be disagreeable content and, therefore, the regulation was unconstitutional.

The court ruled that it was in UNC’s best interests to ban Donnelly.

Donnelly said he doesn’t plan to appeal the case further.

“While UNC is preventing Donnelly from engaging in his free speech rights at future UNC athletic events, record evidence shows that UNC is seeking to protect its students and employees from his harassing and inappropriate behavior instead of intending to quash Donnelly’s right to speak freely,” the court opinion states.

Sports editor Grace Raynor contributed to reporting.

sports@dailytarheel.com