Conduct that is harmful is conduct that would cause harm to someone, basically conduct that would injure somebody. Conduct that is offensive would be something that is just causing anger or displeasure to someone, or making an attack against someone, which is not going to hurt them in a physical way. Bok objects to censorship that would offend the students such as, flags or something similar, but does not object to campus police preventing the students from being attack because they are of a certain race.

I really don't think that there is such a "right to anonymity." There is no mention of this right in the constitution. Also with things such as terrorist attacks, that may occur, America can't take the chance the these people who want to remain unknown will not do such a thing as a terrorist act. One would think that the only ones who would really not want something like a national ID be the people who have done a crime of some kind or are planning on doing some crime. Most people probably don't understand that there is a difference between anonymity and their privacy. These people most likely believe that more than just their name, address, photo, and print would be included on the card. So they feel that their privacy would be invaded by the government. There is really no reason to have anymore information than that on an ID. Whatever anyones feelings are about a national ID, they can all agree that giving up a little freedom in return for a little more security would be a worthy tradeoff.