A core constitutional right, the freedom of speech, appears to be under state and federal pressure. President Trump’s announcement that he was taking action against “illegal protests” at universities back in March caught my eye. While protests in Port Townsend have been peaceful, Seattle has experienced things getting out of hand.

For recent examples, recall the damage done to grounds at the University of Washington by occupants of a pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024, and this past May when protestors occupied an engineering building at the University of Washington and vandalized costly equipment inside it. Fortunately things went smoother during this past weekend’s No Kings protests June 14 against President Trump’s immigration and other policies, which were peaceful locally and even in Seattle — at least until fires were set around the federal building that evening.

I support taking action against protestors that vandalize property, but the term “illegal protests” connotes a broader breadth. I respect the right to exercise freedom of speech by protesting — without damage or impeding others or their property.

The “illegal protests” targeted at universities are explained by an executive order in January calling for the removal of foreign students who participated in protests. The order was issued to “quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.” We saw this play out at Columbia University, with federal funding cancelled due to failure to stop harassment of Jewish students in March.

Action may well have been warranted but needs to be tempered with respect of due process rights, which multiple courts have held have been violated recently, and consideration of the public benefits of scientific and medical research.

These actions may also concern many liberals. But consider that Washington State’s government also treads precipitously close to free speech.

In February 2024, our state legislature passed SB 5427, initiating a “Hate Crimes Hotline.” A pilot version of the hotline will be operational next month in four counties and expanded statewide by 2027. The hotline encourages citizens to report both hate crimes and “bias incidents.” SB 5427 originally included what amounted to a $2,000 bounty for individuals making reports. That compensation was removed prior to bill passage, and now a hotline report leads to a resource referral and law enforcement notification.

Hate Crimes are unlawful and unacceptable. They intentionally target members of the following protected classes: race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, or mental, physical, and sensory disability, as per RCW 9A.36.030.

But the hotline goes further than actual crime and encourages reporting “bias incidents” not amounting to hate crimes. “Bias incidents” are defined as “a person’s hostile expression of animus toward another person, relating to the other person’s actual or perceived characteristics as listed in [the hate crime statute], of which criminal investigation or prosecution is impossible or inappropriate,” as stated in SB 5427. “Bias incidents” exclude expressions supporting or opposing domestic or foreign governmental action protected under free speech.

Despite this governmental action carve out, conservative groups have voiced concern that Washington’s hotline will have a chilling effect on free speech. “’It potentially target[s] people for actions they don’t like, but are not actually hate crimes. …[T]his would create sort of a ‘tattletale hotline’ to report people one doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like.’ … Although it acknowledges bias incidents are “noncriminal,” the bill treats them in a similar manner as a hate crime, which is a Class C felony,” according to reporting in the Feb. 24 Center Square, a project of the Franklin News Foundation. The hotline uncomfortably brings to mind former Soviet Union encouragement of people to inform on neighbors and family members.

Washington’s Attorney General Nick Brown defends the hotline as a prosecution tool and notes that, “The state also has witnessed a rise in religious discrimination, crimes against LGBTQ+ people and antisemitism.”

Coming full circle, actions of both President Trump and the Washington State legislature are motivated in part by combating antisemitism. And the actions of both may potentially chill free speech. I believe consistency requires acknowledging the parallels between these actions. And I find it hard to condemn one without the other.

Port Towsend experienced heated protests and counter-protests in 2022 following the banning of Julie Jaman from the YMCA. There have been more recent incidents in Seattle of protests getting out of hand in the trans- v. women’s rights debate. Could these sorts of actions by either or both sides result in hotline reports?

Freedom of speech means we will be exposed to and must tolerate language with which we do not agree. And it is a two-way street.

Marcia Kelbon is an attorney and engineer based in Quilcene. Contact mkelbonpolitical@gmail.com.