A commenter to the government speech post reasoned that, “I’d say the threat of a reprimand would have a chilling effect on speech.” Sure; but I think that can’t be enough to make a reprimand (assuming the reprimand is based on the target’s constitutionally protected speech) unconstitutional.
Lots of things may have a chilling effect on speech. Criticism, in particular, often has a chilling effect on the speech that’s being criticized; that’s often its purpose. One reason we don’t say various things — stupid things, rude things, or even things that we think are right but that we think many others dislike — is that we fear being criticized for them.
Likewise, government denunciations of particular positions, even without naming names, can have a chilling effect. If the government denounces racism, that may deter racists from speaking. If the University Administration denounces criticism of homosexuality — or denounces defense of homosexuality — that may likewise deter professors and students from speaking, even setting aside their fear of more tangible actions. When leading institutions argue that some viewpoint is reprehensible, that surely helps create a climate in which some people will be deterred from expressing that viewpoint.
The question, I think, is whether government criticism of particular people’s speech, and in particular the government’s assertions that the speech violates some rules, is sufficiently different from the other examples I just gave. I’m not sure what the answer is; but let me offer this hypothetical: Say that a high school student, or for that matter a college student, writes something that’s racist, religiously bigoted, or otherwise insulted. Let’s assume that the administration may not punish him (especially likely for the university student).
Should the administration be equally barred from publicly condemning him by name, for instance in some e-mail to the students? What if the speech is done by a student organization — should the administration be barred from publicly condemning the group by name? Should it make a First Amendment difference if the statement were labeled an “official reprimand” as opposed to being an ad-hoc statement?