After reading Mike Hernandez's letter, "Randomly used policy limits free speech" (SN 4/05), regarding hate speech, I could not help but feel that he was missing a crucial point in the debate: Context matters.

The emotional effect of a Ku Klux Klan, or KKK, rally is very different than any of the examples that Hernandez provides.

The history of race relations in this country has been violent. If you need examples, do a quick search for the names Emmitt Till, Edgar Ray Killen or Benjamin "August" Smith.

The words at a KKK rally are not spoken into a vacuum, but into a context where they could be reasonably interpreted as advocating violence. Because of the events of recent history, these words could be perceived by a rational person as a threat.

The flaw in Hernandez's argument is the conflation of hate speech and offensive speech. Hernandez cites John Bice, the Wells Hall preachers and an overweight person calling someone "too skinny" as examples.

However, there is no reason to believe that any of these people, by speaking in ways that others find offensive, are advocating violence as a means to enforce their views.

Controversial views should not be censored. In many cases, those views are the ones that help people learn and grow the most. However, MSU has the responsibility to ensure that its students and faculty do not feel threatened as a result of the views others express.

There is a difference between hate speech and offensive speech.

Michael Kirkpatrick
computer science graduate student