> Come on, Margaret Atwood. You can do better than this. "Protected class," "inciting," and "credible threat" are all specific legal terms, and you can look the

> Come on, Margaret Atwood. You can do better than this. "Protected class," "inciting," and "credible threat" are all specific legal terms, and you can look them up rather than invent your own definitions in service of your argument. I think she did a fine job of laying out her argument so everyone could understand. A "protected class" implies there are classes that are not protected. Atwood was making it clear that that protected class should mean any groupable people by trait. > And the reason they don't ban hate symbols, I'm guessing, is that they would have to list them explicitly. You don't have to list things explicitly to ban them. A no swearing policy doesn't list every swear word publicly. A no homophobia policy doesn't explicitly list every act of homophobia possible. > A symbol alone is not the same as an incitement to violence. I think a group of people protesting with certain symbols would be a call to violence. Symbols convey meaning. Some symbols have been used and associated with humanity's worst acts and carry with it that meaning. > And how do you categorize, for instance, the Palestinian flag or the Israeli flag? State flags are state flags, I'm not sure you can categorically call them symbols of hate. A Hamas flag (a group of people that have specifically called for the death of all Jews) is a symbol of hate, despite a non-zero number of people thinking otherwise.