Florida Atlantic University has a reporting policy
that requires its faculty and staff to disclose outside
professional activities to the university so that it may
determine whether those activities constitute a conflict of
interest. FAU used that policy as purported justification
to terminate Professor James Tracy for not "disclosing"
a notorious and widely criticized personal blog, which
questioned the veracity of the Sandy Hook massacre
narrative depicted by the government and the media.
FAU's reporting policy incoherently defines professional
practice as both compensated and uncompensated activity,
does not make any reference to blogging or social media
use, and was applied to Professor Tracy even though the
policy had never been applied to require the reporting
of personal blogs by any of the dozens of other FAU
professors who maintain blogs or social media sites. The
question presented is:

Whether FAU's conflict-of-interest reporting policy
is unconstitutionally vague, impermissibly chills speech,
and may be facially challenged because it grants the public
university unbridled discretion to engage in content-based
viewpoint discrimination against employees like Professor
Tracy?

Whether FAU's reporting policy is unconstitutionally vague, impermissibly chills speech, and may be facially challenged because it grants the public university unbridled discretion to engage in content-based viewpoint discrimination against employees like Professor Tracy?