Table of Contents
Misunderstanding āThreatsā at the University of Illinois
As we reported in a press release this morning, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is threatening a student with discipline for a comment he posted on Facebook.com. The student was a member of a now-defunct Facebook.com group formed in response to a movement to get rid of Illinoisā Native American mascot, āChief Illiniwek.ā The group called itself āIf They Get Rid of the Chief Iām Becoming a Racist,ā and the student in question posted the following comment:
Apparently the leader of this movement is of Sioux descent. Which means what, you ask? The Sioux indians [sic] are the ones that killed off the Illini indians [sic], so sheās just trying to finish off what her ancestors started. I say we throw a tomohawk [sic] into her face.
It should be obvious that rather than attempting to incite a tomahawk attack on campus, this student was simply registering his extreme displeasure using the type of over-the-top, hyperbolic language favored by students nationwide (for example, a quick search of Facebook.com groups at my alma mater reveals the existence of groups such as āEvery Facebook Group Should End With Bitchā¦Bitchā; āMOL 214 Makes Me Want to Punch a Baby in the Faceā¦and I LOVE Babiesā; and āStalking is the Sincerest Form of Flattery.ā)
Rather then giving this student the benefit of the doubt, however, the university launched an investigation into what Chancellor Richard Herman termed the āviolentā and āviciousā threats. While true threatsāwhich the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as āstatements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individualsā āare not protected by the First Amendment, this case does not involve such a threat. Rather, the studentās speech is what the Court has referred to as constitutionally protected āpolitical hyperboleā (the example the Court gave of such protected hyperbole was a statement by a draft protestor that ā[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.ā)
This is truly a case of overkill on the part of the university. While the university has every right to decry speech that it considers offensive and inconsistent with the universityās values, it cannot, as a public institution, punish such speech. We hope the university will see this studentās comments for what they truly were and drop its unnecessary and unlawful investigation.
Recent Articles
FIREās award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Speech is not a crime ā even if it complicates ICEās job
Aaron Terr explains why alerting others to law enforcement activity, or reporting on it, is protected by the First Amendment.

FIREamicus brief: First Amendment bars using schoolkid standards to silence parents' speech
School officials ousted parents for protesting a trans athlete by wearing pink XX wristbands at a soccer game. FIREexplains how the court's decision got things wrong.

Trump's $16M win over '60 Minutes' edit sends chilling message to journalists everywhere
Trump's $16M win over a "60 Minutes" edit sends a chilling message to journalists everywhere. ¹ū¶³“«Ć½app¹Ł·½ās Bob Corn-Revere calls it what it is: the FCC playing politics.

To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question
As political pressure mounts, Dinah Megibow-Taylor explores whether recent institutional statements defend academic freedom ā or quietly erode it.