Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is very brief and seemingly clear. “Congress shall make no law.” It is more complicated because exceptions have been legislated or created. There are restrictions on obscenity, though the definitions evolve—or devolve. Comedy routines that got Lenny Bruce arrested in the 60s are common today.

Also, you can’t threaten the life of the President, even rhetorically, or the Secret Service will show up. You’re not free to possess child porn. Hate speech is also forbidden, but that is as vague a concept as pornography and obscenity. We all know better than to yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre. Incitement to riot or insurrection is also forbidden, along with terrorist threats. Yet again, it’s complicated.

If I shout “Kill the umpire” at a Dodger game, I’m unlikely to be charged with advocating violence, hate speech, or making a terrorist threat. “Kill the ref” at a Raiders game might, because of Raider culture, be taken more seriously. Shouting “Kill the ref” at a European soccer game could be seen as a terrorist threat because of the history of violence. Same words but different contexts.

Similarly, race, class, and ethnicity count in enforcement. African Americans using violent rhetoric in the 60s were frequently taken literally and arrested when they were only “trash talking.” These are examples of laws that limit free speech, which has never been absolute.

In today’s current events, there is evidence of widespread misunderstanding of what free speech means. It means the government shouldn’t limit and censor speech. Under most circumstances, we are free to express ourselves without fear of prosecution by the government. But free speech is usually misunderstood as “Speech that is free of consequences.” There is no such right.

To cite a counterfactual hypothetical, were my wife to ask me, “Does this dress make my butt look big?” I would be free to respond “Yes.” That’s my free speech right, but it would have the foreseeable and legally supportable consequence of my sleeping on the couch for an indeterminate period. I also have the right to say to my boss, “Man, you’re both ugly and stupid,” and he has the right to fire me.

Being a child of the 60s and having demonstrated in Berkeley (never violently), we fought for freedom of speech. Too soon, many fellow protesters got lost and forgot about their duty to accord the same rights to others. Here, we meet the crux of the problem. We all favor free (really consequence-free) speech for ourselves but not for those hateful and stupid people on the other side. I can call you a deluded, racist monster, yet demand you not offend me by using offensive racial, sexist, or Antisemitic epithets. You may call me a snowflake yet resent my insulting you. Right and left, each has separate and lengthy lists of words that cannot be used because they insult, marginalize, and offend.

I understand, and sometimes I might sympathize. However, there is no constitutional right not to be offended.

Today, free speech also gets mixed up with the included rights to “peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” You can peacefully assemble in some places, but not others. The public square may be ok if not likely to lead to violence. The quad at a university, either public or private, might involve trespass, and you could be ordered either to disperse or be arrested. I personally encountered such circumstances on Sproul Plaza at Berkeley in the 60s-70s. I was never arrested but was teargassed from helicopters. Not pleasant—and, by the way, teargas is prohibited in war by the Geneva Convention. Domestically, it seems to be fine. Go figure?

There is no free speech right to assemble on my property and shout epithets. Shouting from the street might be free speech but still could be within the reach of the law if deemed non-peaceful, hate speech or likely to lead to violence.

Thoreau, Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. all advocated for civil disobedience that was predicated on putting the law on trial in order to change it. It necessitated subjecting oneself to arrest and trial so that society would have to deal with what they were doing to people. There was no anonymity—balaclavas, ski masks or keffiyeh. When protestors began occupying buildings and making “non-negotiable demands” for amnesty, we had devolved past the ideals of Thoreau, Gandhi and King.

Today, young people are protesting Gaza (as is their right) but too often they are also harassing, bullying and tolerating a violent component in their midst. Many are covering their faces and trespassing. They need to remember that our precious First Amendment right is “peaceably to assemble,” not engage in hate speech and either perform or advocate bullying, intimidation or violence. Even if following these legal guidelines, free speech is always limited by predictable and often long-lasting and negative consequences.

There are First Amendment fundamentalists, rather like Second Amendment maximalists. They claim that the amendment must be without limits regarding Gaza, Hamas and Israel. Many seem to believe that every Jew on campus is an agent of Israel and an exemplar of Jewish, White, colonialist, oppression and thus fair game for intimidation. I understand the fierce certainties of youth (having myself been one once). I may fault them, but I don’t condemn them. It’s the adults, the administrators who have failed. They would not offer a First Amendment rationale for tolerating the denigration of people of color. So, why this exception?