The bogus claim that there’s a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment of the US Constitution usually comes from a left-wing position, but anyone can use it. The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York claimed that the speech made by student Fatima Mousa Mohammed at the May 12 Law School commencement constituted “hate speech.” The statement asserts that “hate speech … should not be confused with free speech and has no place on our campuses or in our city, our state or our nation.” Presumably the university plans or has already engaged in some action penalizing the speaker, though I haven’t been able to find out what it did or is going to do.

This case is particularly interesting because it doesn’t follow the usual script of people holding a left-wing view claiming that positions they don’t like are unprotected “hate speech.” According to an article on FIRE’s website, Ms. Mohammed “accused Israel of ‘indiscriminately raining bullets and bombs’ on Palestinians, criticized CUNY for working with the ‘fascist’ New York City Police Department and military, and expressed disdain for ‘capitalism, racism, imperialism and Zionism.'” Those sound more like the positions of someone who’d fling “hate speech” accusations rather than being on the receiving end.

A New York Post article suggests that the statement may be the work only of trustees chair Bill Thompson and vice chair Sandra Wilkin, and that the names of the other trustees were added without their express consent. However, it also indicates that none of the trustees have publicly repudiated it.

The CUNY statement claims that the speech “has no place” not just on the campus but “in our city, our state or our nation.” They’re saying not just that they can punish students for making such statements in a graduation speech, but that they should be illegal everywhere in the United States. That is outrageous.

The term “hate speech” is undefined, so it’s easy to turn it into a weapon against anyone who takes a passionate position. Has CUNY shifted politically so it’s decided that attacking property rights and free markets is “hate speech”? Don’t bet on it. It looks more likely that CUNY has caved in to external political pressure. Whatever the driving force might be, the point is that people of any persuasion can hitch a ride on a doctrine that claims that freedom of speech allows only some views, and people with power are in the best position to censor their critics.

Update: New York Mayor Eric Adams is backing CUNY’s position on speech prohibition, declaring that “we cannot allow it [the graduation speech] to happen.” He said that if he had been present, “I would have stood up and denounced them immediately!” In conjunction with the “cannot allow” remark, that suggests he would have ordered her to be silent.