PSU Must Hold the Line: Don't Cave!
PSU Must Hold the Line:
"I Am Hamas" Lawsuit Under-Cut Constitutional Accountability
Portland, OR — Portland State University and its president, Dr. Ann Cudd, are facing a major lawsuit filed by Dr. Yasmeen Hanoosh, a tenured professor and director of the school’s Arabic program.
The legal action follows the widespread fallout from a viral video recorded at a June 2, 2025, Beaverton rally.
In the footage, which was filmed and distributed across X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram by independent videographers, Dr. Hanoosh is heard stating, "I am Hamas. We are all Hamas."
This situation marks a crucial institutional test for the university as it navigates the legal and public relations aftermath.
Instead of searching for an easy exit or a quiet financial settlement to avoid a public trial, Portland State University needs to double down, reject legal strong-arming, and completely refuse to budge.
The Press Freedom Reality
Hanoosh’s legal team argues that the seven-second recording was taken out of context during an off-campus rally and should be dismissed as "rhetorical hyperbole." They claim the university’s subsequent actions—including a 12-month layoff notice issued during department budget cuts—amount to targeted retaliation.
The FACT is you don't get to control the Press of Speech:
Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. You don't get to play selective enforcement with this one.
The statement was made openly, out loud, in a public forum, and was captured by independent journalists. Under the First Amendment, the media has an absolute, protected right to record and broadcast public speech. A public university employee making an overt statement aligning themselves with a designated terrorist organization cannot use the legal system to rewrite the consequences of their own publicly documented words.
Accountability, Not Capitulation
While Hanoosh's lawsuit demands damages for "reputational harm," the damage to her professional standing was self-inflicted the moment she chose to utter those words on camera.
Public universities are bound by the Constitution, but that obligation extends to defending independent journalism and maintaining institutional accountability—not shielding faculty from the public fallout of their own speech.
The Bottom Line: If Portland State University settles this lawsuit or pays out a financial package, it sends a dangerous message that public institutions can be bullied into submission.
Instead of capitulating to selective enforcement of constitutional rights, PSU leadership must stand firm, defend the transparency of the press, and refuse to settle for a single cent. Enforcing accountability isn't politics—it is the baseline standard a public university is required to uphold.
Conclusion
If you don't want something you say out in the public, then perhaps you should use some personal filters or just keep your damn mouth shut, or deal with the consequences of your own stupidity.
Yes—under U.S. constitutional law, state governments are absolutely bound by the U.S. Constitution, and any state law or official action that conflicts with it is invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
And yes—once a court determines that a state law or action violates the Constitution, that law is not just “discouraged” or “questionable,” but unlawful and unenforceable, and continued enforcement can be blocked by injunctions and can trigger further legal consequences.
In the United States, independent investigative journalism is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This protection means that individuals and organizations do not need a government-issued license, permit, credential, or “press pass” to engage in journalistic activity, including investigating matters of public concern, gathering information, and publishing or distributing their findings.
While press passes may be issued by private organizations or used for access purposes (such as entry to certain events or restricted areas), they cannot be forced in matters of public areas and public access by the general public, and therefore anyone making any sort of open comment or engaging in any behavior openly, or openly misrepresenting something id subject to the public domain and public access!
DO not use AI to do research or answer legal questions as they will always try and minimize details and try and neutralize information to align to their own imposed policies by their creators which by definition misrepresents actual laws and undermines the facts about those protected freedoms.
