The defacing of the Kay Yow memorial in the Free Expression Tunnel following Saturday’s UNC basketball game has once again raised questions about what the purpose of the tunnel should be.

Some University officials and members of the NAACP have questioned the role of the Free Expression Tunnel, including what can and can’t be said in it.

According to the First Amendment, “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.”

Traciel Reid, an associate professor of political science, said the First Amendment promotes discussion but does not give people the right to say whatever they want, no matter the situation.

“The government’s policy on free speech has been decided by the Supreme Court over a series of court cases,” she said.

In the policy, Reid said, are restrictions on certain types of speech, including obscenities – words that disrupt the public peace and threats.

Reid said that the f-word is considered an obscenity, but words like the n-word, which appeared in the tunnel in November, are not.

“N***** is offensive, but offensive language and obscenities are different things in legal terms,” Reid said.

The f-word, which appeared in the Free Expression Tunnel Saturday night, does violate the First Amendment, according to Reid.

However, Reid said the threats in the tunnel last November, which incensed many on campus, still didn’t violate the First Amendment.

The laws for threats, Reid said, are there, “but the threat has to be real, actual, and targeted.”

She said for what was written in November to actually violate the First Amendment, a few questions must be asked and answered by investigators.

“Was it the intention of the painters to actually carry out on the threat? Did Obama feel threatened in anyway?” she asked.

For the painters to have violated the First Amendment, the answer to both questions would be yes or there had been a breach of public peace.

With regard to the threatening messages in the tunnel on Nov. 5, Reid said the painting did not violate the First Amendment or classify as a hate crime.

“Hate crimes are actual criminal crimes, not someone saying something offensive,” she said.

In November, some wondered if the University had violated the First Amendment by painting over the messages.

Reid said the University has gone out of its way to avoid breaking the First Amendment.

“It is very commendable that the University hasn’t tried to regulate speech by enacting speech codes, or chill speech. They have been respectful of the values implicit in the First Amendment,” she said.

Reid also worries that many people don’t understand the scope of the First Amendment.

“People are surprised to find content protected,” she said.

Arthur Haislet, an undeclared freshman, was one who thought that hate crimes violated the freedom of speech.

“A person has a right to their opinion, but not to insult people,” he said. “I thought what happened was slander.”

Charles McDowell, a sophomore in political science, said he thinks that many people don’t care about the First Amendment.

“If you take away the First Amendment, we wouldn’t be the country that fought the Revolutionary War,” McDowell said.

Reid agreed that the First Amendment is very important.

“Without it, you couldn’t have a democratic society,” Reid said.