It’s fatally vague, backward and fundamentally flawed, so naturally Syracuse University made it a regulation, the violation of which was subject to punishment. To its credit, FIRE took up the cause of Syracuse freshman Samantha Jones, who was found to have inflicted “mental harm” on another student by asking a question.

“Syracuse’s nebulous ban on ‘mental harm’ means students don’t know if they can ask questions or discuss sexual misconduct without getting in trouble,” said FIRE Program Officer Alex Morey. “Administrators should take action now to ensure these kinds of vague policies don’t infringe students’ core expressive rights.”

Doesn’t “mental harm” matter? It no doubt does, in a theoretical sense, as does any harm since no one wants anyone to feel harmed. But the violation stems not from cognizable conduct about which an individual would have notice, but the feelings, the fragility, of the “victim.” And, of course, this isn’t about conduct that involves physical harm, the sort one can objectively realize before engaging in, but the use of words. In this case, Jones did no more than ask a question. As we used to tell the kids, questions are good ways to find things out.

In October, having heard rumors of past predatory behavior, Jones approached a fellow student at an off-campus party and asked him if he is a registered sex offender in his native country, Canada.

He reported the incident to campus police, who referred the matter to Syracuse’s Office of Community Standards. Last month, the University Conduct Board found Jones responsible for violating a ban on “[c]onduct, whether physical, electronic, oral, written or video, which threatens the mental health, physical health, or safety of anyone.” Jones has since been placed on disciplinary probation and is required to attend “Decision-Making” and “Conflict Coaching” workshops.

“Accusing someone of something that has no validity, especially being on a sex offender list can harm one’s mental health and safety,” wrote Syracuse administrator Sheriah Dixon in a December memo detailing Jones’ formal punishment. The problem with this assessment? Jones didn’t accuse the man of anything. The Conduct Board’s own findings conclude plainly that all Jones did was seek clarification about rumors.

Syracuse’s actions have all the makings of a bad and untenable rule, from punishing speech to a back-end claim of harm so amorphous and subjective that it’s impossible to ascertain. There is little question that FIRE is right to take up arms on behalf of Jones and to challenge SU, a serial student censor, for its rule and its discipline.

And yet, there remains a disquieting aspect to this particular instance that deserves consideration.

I used my voice to protect myself and others from the possibility of predatory behavior. Now I’m being punished for it.

Jones heard rumors that this “guy at the party had a history of problematic behavior toward women.” It’s unclear what rumors she heard or from whom, or what problematic behavior the rumors raised. But they were rumors.

So Syracuse University freshman Samantha Jones went right up to him and asked: Was he a registered sex offender?

It’s not that Jones isn’t entitled to believe rumors, no matter how baseless or ridiculous. This is America and people are entitled to believe the earth is flat if they want to. And if Jones wished to have nothing to do with this guy about whom she heard rumors, that’s entirely her right as well. But that doesn’t elevate rumors of sexual impropriety to reality, particularly a reality where a student believes that she is defending herself “and others” from this sexual predator about whom she heard rumors.

“Accusing someone of something that has no validity, especially being on a sex offender list can harm one’s mental health and safety,” wrote Syracuse administrator Sheriah Dixon in a December memo detailing Jones’ formal punishment.

Indeed, it can, not that the fact that “it can” forms an adequate basis for a rule prohibiting it or discipline for violating it. But in the current climate, not only does fear arise from rumors, but so does the rationalization that taking some form of action based upon it is not merely justifiable, but required. After all, silence is complicity.

From the findings, it would appear that this wasn’t merely a private question posed at a off-campus school party, but a “verbal altercation,” suggesting it was public enough, loud enough, that it drew the attention of others. Whether it was just a question or a question posed as an accusation, is unclear, but she persisted after the person told her to “get out of my face.”

The hint that someone might be a sexual predator, raised by accusation or the mere asking of a question (why else would she ask?) is the sort of taint that can wreak havoc on campus in the current climate. Perhaps wiser people would think, “well, this doesn’t mean he is on the sex offender registry,” but there will be many who also say “but why take a chance?” Rumors of sexual impropriety, and a baseless public question that will taint a fellow student by implication, will almost certainly do harm. That’s the prevailing climate on campus, better sexually safe than sorry and who would be friends, or date, or have intimate relations, with someone rumored to be a sexual predator. Just in case.

FIRE should be applauded for taking up this case against a bad and untenable rule and punishment for the exercise of speech. But that doesn’t make Samantha Jones anyone’s hero, or turn her actions into something justifiable, if not praiseworthy. It’s unsurprising that her perspective is that she was justified in engaging in such inappropriate and baseless speech, as the tables have turned when it comes to campus sexual misconduct, where even a baseless rumor is sufficient grounds to publicly raise the specter of some poor guy being a sexual predator.

The presumption that all male students are potential, if not likely, rapists has become an all too common belief. This doesn’t mean speech should be banned because of this toxic climate, but that doesn’t make the atmosphere at Syracuse and elsewhere any less toxic.