Speech is protected

My knowledge of the student sit-in at WSU is secondhand, from what I read in the Daily News and The Spokesman Review. The Daily News reported that the students at the sit-in “argued for a differentiation between speech and hate speech, which would not be protected under the law.” This is a false statement. The Supreme Court, most recently in Matal v. Tam (2017), has ruled that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. The Spokesman Review said only that the students “asked for a clear policy defining free speech and hate speech.” There seems to be no purpose to doing so, since hate speech is protected speech.

The Constitution does not protect students from being offended, nor can public institutions like WSU. The world is filled with attitudes and behaviors, in demonstrations, “Trump walls,” writings and speech, that will make them, and me, uncomfortable. Unless these actions promote imminent violence, which does not include such things as microaggressions or their feeling being hurt, the actions and speech are protected.

Freedom of speech is needed for when people will be offended. In fact, free speech is, I believe, the biggest protection against hate.

Robert Rosenman

Pullman