> Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I ha

> Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male. That would almost certainly depend on the underlying intent and message. I think you're completely wrong about how improtant identity is in this case, especially if we're trying to determine whether most people would view something as hate speech. The only thing special about a black female is that her underlying intent and message is obivous in context... which, yeah, context matters. Fact Of Human Communication. If the message were the same as the black female's, it would maybe be identified as "problematic" by some people, but I doubt anyone would call it hate speech. NOTE: This was EXACTLY the response when the black female posted the signs! There was plenty of criticism about tactics even though she was a black female. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-... If the message were something like "free speech is important", I doubt most people would be sympathetic. Especially mature and thoughtful free-speech activists (even as they defended his right to express those opinions in non-graffiti settings). There are just much better ways of communicating that message. But in any case this almost certainly would not -- de jure -- be considered hate speech. If it were a professed white nationalist -- as it is in this case -- then it might be considered hate speech and maybe even a hate crime b/c it was graffiti (or, in the case of the article, possibly unauthorized access) (edit: holy shit a -2 mod on a comment pointing out that context is important to interpreting a message... LOL)