This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

'Virtually any joke or off-putting remark could result in the speaker being forced to navigate the investigative process'

A leftist university's apparent campaign to suppress speech with which it disagrees has gotten it sued.

Student Zoe Johnson, a leader for Young Americans for Freedom, of the University of Colorado at Boulder has filed an action, through the Gessler Blue and Dhillon law firms, seeking a judgment that declares the institution's "Anti-discrimination policy" violates the First and 14th Amendments, a permanent injunction against it, monetary damages and lawyers' fees.

The fight is over Johnson's expression of her beliefs, and the school's "reporting" system for such comments that, the lawsuit charges, "chills expression."

"Because the university defines 'experiences of bias' to encompass behavior, speech, or expression that 'has a negative impact,' virtually any joke or off-putting remark could result in the speaker being forced to navigate the university's investigative process or 'an educational resolution process,'" Ross Marchand of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said, according to a report at the College Fix.

"While cutting jokes and demeaning comments can be hurtful, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and clearly held that meaningful freedom of speech must protect expression others find offensive or even hateful."

He explained the "complicated, bureaucratic processes explicitly intended to 'stop the behavior' flies in the face of the First Amendment by chilling protected speech."

"UC Boulder needs to make clear that, in order to be reportable, offenses need to violate the law or university policy," Marchand said.

The school's "equity and compliance" bureaucracy now is called the "Office of Collaboration," and it enforces the so-called "nondiscrimination" rules.

"The report said she has been "investigated" because of her criticism of identity politics, and a question about a piece of clothing.

She was not formally punished under the bureaucracy, but now "lives in constant fear that anything she says could be considered 'unwelcome conduct," the report said.

The legal action cites the school's decision to threaten her with investigation for her comments about protected classes.

She said, according to the report, "Why do we need two months of this? Didn't we do this back in June?" regarding a choir class about LGBT ideologies.

She also allegedly offended students by asking what a "do-rag" was, seeing one on a male student's head, the report said.

When confronted by a choir director, she explained, "I truly never meant to hurt anyone but I believe that students should have the emotional maturity to resolve any issues they have with me on their own."

The choir director had become part of the attack earlier by criticizing her comment about white privilege. She explained, "I don't care about your identity, I care more about what you have to say as a person, more than how you look."