Hate speech is any expression motivated by prejudice or hostility toward a person or group because of the person’s or group’s actual or perceived identity. Hate speech is not illegal. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech even if it contains offensive content. However, the First Amendment does not protect behavior or expression that cross the boundary into targeted harassment, threats, substantial disruption to university operations, or violence.

At the federal level, a hate crime is a crime motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Learn more about hate crimes at the U.S. Department of Justice website.

Under the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), whether content is “obscene” depends on three factors:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; 
2. Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct or excretory functions, as defined by state law, in an offensive way; and 
3. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Only if all three of these factors are satisfied can a public university prohibit speech because it is “obscene.”

“In the landmark case Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that academic freedom is not limited to faculty members but extends to students as well. The Court held that students have the right to express their views, both in and out of the classroom, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment. This decision ensured that students could engage in political activism and express dissenting opinions without fear of censorship” (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

However, this does not mean that students can disrupt the classroom or decline to follow the terms of assignments or other required classroom expression, so long as that expression is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical objective. E.g. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 365 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004).

• To NOT speak (e.g., the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). This does not include expression required as part of a course or academic program, so long as the required expression is reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical objective.
• To protest. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). 
• To contribute money to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). 
• To advertise lawful commercial products and professional services in nondeceptive ways (with some restrictions). Central Hudson Gas & Electricity v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
• To engage in symbolic speech (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

• Inciting imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). 
• Making or distributing obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). 
• Advocating illegal drug use at school-sponsored events. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). 
• Defaming others by making false statements (not just opinions) that harms reputation. 
• Harassment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics.
• Stalking.
• Threats of violence. 
• Substantially disrupting the educational environment, university operations, or others’ right to protected expression.

Utah Valley University and/or police may intervene in these instances and other university policy violations. Such violations may result in disciplinary action up to and including suspension or expulsion. (UVU Policy 541 Student Code of Conduct)