The right to free speech should always be protected with the upmost regard. But limitations must come into play when Islamic State group recruitment practices could be permitted on college campuses.

Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) said last week that terrorist organizations, specifically the Islamic State group, should be allowed to recruit at universities. The remarks came after a debate regarding the “Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act.” Daniel argued that the legislation “would direct schools to observe freedom of speech on campus” after what he claims have been restrictive speech policies in recent years at Tennessee institutions.

Daniel’s sentiment in an attempt to preserve the freedom of expression may have been well-intentioned. But — at its core — this rhetoric fails to align with the fundamentals of the First Amendment. The active promotion of the Islamic State group has the capacity to incite imminent lawless action, considering the terrorist organization has claimed responsibility and inspired deadly attacks across the globe.

The group most recently named itself behind attacks in Belgium where at least 30 people have been confirmed dead with more than 230 others wounded after two explosions — at least one caused by a suicide bomber — at Brussels Airport and another in a Brussels subway station Tuesday morning, The New York Times reported.

In response to a question concerning whether he believed the Islamic State group should be able to “recruit for ISIS” within campus communities, USA Today reported Daniel said that like any other organization or cause, the Islamic State group is “just part of being exposed to differing viewpoints” as long as it doesn’t disrupt university proceedings.

Recruitment ventures among college students for the Islamic State group would likely disrupt the communities with counter protest demonstrations. Regardless of this factor, universities and lawmakers alike should have a clear understanding that the advocacy for free speech in the form of protecting operational practices for terrorist groups is a dangerous approach.

Limitations on free speech should never be implemented without substantive reason. But institutional leaders like Daniel should consider the fact that the protection of personal rights should not mean outwardly putting the safety of college campuses and the greater United States at risk at a time of intense international conflict.