I think that's a bit unfair. There's nothing wrong with a bit of missionnary work and spreading the Word, regardlesd of faith as long as it stays just that. Further, it's a bit disingenuous to accuse or rhetorically couple someone to outright hate speech without proof.

I mean, what? We should censor speech because they may say something we don't like? That's madness, one, and two, antithetical to the mission of the institution as a public University. There should be penalties for incompetent Administrators who overstep or abuse their authority by unilaterally attemptimg to abolish a fundamental civil right.

And if that speech was calling for lgbtq+ students to be expelled from the university?

When an article neglects to mention what exactly the student was saying, it's a very good indication that it wasn't a kind and gentle message.

Having searched, i found this article, which is far better written: https://www.vox.com/2021/3/8/22319503/supreme-courts-evangel...

It seems like, yes, his first amendment right were violated. While I may not like religion, he certainly should be allowed to hand out pamphlets as long as he's not being agressive about it.

I don't get the $1 part

They got to abuse his constitutional rights and they pay his attorneys fees + $1 as recompense?

Often when someone wants to make a point on what they feel are their principles, they seek costs + $1 in symbolic damages, as the intended purpose is to set a precedent and not to actually collect punitive damages.

The First Amendment does not distinguish between hate-speech and non-hate-speech, it simply protects any kind of speech.

'hate speech' That's speech you don't like?

No, stuff like "all people named jake need to die or god will punish us all"