Skip to main content

- What We Do
- What we defend
- Have your rights been violated?
  If you face retaliation over protected speech, reach out to FIRE to learn more about how we can protect your rights.
  Submit a Case
- Make a difference
- Subscribe to FIRE Updates
  Stay up to date with FIRE's biggest cases and battles for free expression.
  Subscribe
- Take Action
  Across the nation, free speech rights are under attack. Join us in defending this essential quality of liberty. Make your voice heard and join a campaign.
  Protect Free Speech
- Resources
- College Free Speech Rankings
  Presented by FIRE and College Pulse, the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings is the largest survey of campus free expression ever performed.
  Explore Rankings
- National Speech Index
  The National Speech Index tracks free speech sentiments in America. It is a quarterly survey component of America's Political Pulse from the Polarization Research Lab.
  Learn More
Colleges
News
Cases
Submit a Case
Newsletter

California’s ‘Daily Journal’ Runs FIRE’s Letter on Churchill

by

Greg Lukianoff

February 15, 2005

I dedicated my monthly column at the California Daily Journal to the Ward Churchill case. The Daily Journal is a legal publication that runs editions out of both San Francisco and Los Angeles. I am very pleased that it agreed to run essentially the entire letter we sent to CU. Thank you, Daily Journal!

Recent Articles

Get the latest free speech news and analysis from FIRE.

Cropped image of Secretary of State and former Sen. Marco Rubio set against the Constitution in blue and the words "POLICE" and "ICE" in red.

Federal court rules the statutes the Trump admin used in its speech-based deportation scheme are unconstitutional

August 28, 2026

A federal court ruled that the provisions Secretary of State Marco Rubio used in an attempt to deport legal immigrants for their speech are unconstitutional.

That $17B Meta settlement comes with a catch: Your online speech rights

August 28, 2026

The lawsuits, which accused the company of harming young people through the design of their speech platforms, relied on untested legal theories that faced serious First Amendment challenges.