Hate speech censorship requires more consistency

Derogatory comments written throughout the free expression tunnel Wednesday about Obama were disgusting and resulted in their removal and posting of signs condemning hate speech. Speaking with my peers, no one has objected, nor do I. However, I also think this is the time to take another look at what we choose to classify as “hate speech.”

Signs posted in the tunnel stated that any speech that threatens, slanders or promotes hate toward any individuals based upon race, sexual orientation, religion, political views, etc. are hate speech and will not be tolerated at this University. This reminds me, however, of messages written over the past year that were not censored, yet seem to fit our definition of hate speech. “Kill McCain” was apparently acceptable, as were derogatory comments condemning Christians. How about “all homosexuals should burn in hell.” Based on our definition, are these not examples of “hate speech”? Yet, these messages are apparently protected under freedom of speech. Usually I am not offended to the extent of passionately protesting these messages, but after commenting to my peers, many said that freedom of speech should protect these kinds of comments. Is this right?

The perfect scenario, obviously, is for all people to show respect and refrain from writing hateful messages in the first place. But as we know this will not happen, it is important for us to take another look at what we consider “hate speech” while still protecting freedom of speech appropriately. Consistency, for now, is severely lacking.

Kevin M. Smith

sophomore, meteorology