What’s in a name? Depending on the sort of name you’re talking about, maybe plenty.

The issue of names or, more precisely, name-calling, has been in the national spotlight this week, and it’s looking as though the contention surrounding the matter will intensify before it dissipates.

Two notable cases have recently received national media attention. Both deal with highly sensitive minority topics.

In a surprising move last Wednesday, the city of New York passed a resolution banning use of the “n-word” by all races. As the Associated Press reports, the resolution, almost entirely symbolic, was a response to the prevalent use of the word in popular hip-hop and comedy, as well as in street slang.

Meanwhile, in Santa Rosa, California, some 3,000 miles away, a high-profile lawsuit over a student’s use of the phrase “That’s so gay,” also caught the public’s eye. The student’s parents in this case are suing the school district for punishing their child.

There are some obvious differences between the two cases, which should be acknowledged.

The case in New York, of course, is inherently public, and it immediately evoked a public response. The Santa Rosa case is mainly a private one, at least until the national media caught word of it.

The New York case is primarily an uninforceable request for a change in popular vocabulary. The case in Santa Rosa will determine whether or not use of a common colloquialism will remain grounds for disciplinary action in that area’s schools.

The very words in question, of course, are also different. Though they may be similarly hurtful to the groups they are maliciously used against, “gay” and the “n-word” are hardly commensurate in historical or symbolic significance — the latter is loaded more than the former has ever been.

At their core, however, the two cases seem to be about the same thing, and they beg the same question: Where does free speech end and crime begin?

It’s an open-ended question with no easy answer. This has been plainly evidenced by the conflicting opinions expressed about the recent developments.

For example, prominent members of the black community have spoken strongly in favor of New York’s new legislation. They say that use of the n-word even among blacks has been a source of degradation that runs counter to the community’s goals. Denouncing use of the word, they argue, is a step in the right direction.

Other prominent members of the black community, as the AP report suggests, have spoken out against the resolution, citing the value of the n-word as a source of empowerment within the community. If meaning of the word continues to change as it has, they argue, it will no longer have the power to hurt.

The arguments in the Santa Rosa case are slightly different, but fundamentally similar. School administrators say that casual use of the word “gay” in contexts where it is synonymous with “stupid,” has no place in the classroom — that such talk can be hurtful to members of the gay community.

The punished student’s parents and other students in the school contend that phrases like “That’s so gay,” have already lost their power to hurt. “Gay” is synonymous with “silly,” they argue, and only becomes an epithet when it is intended to be one.

On this point, they may be right. The meaning in a word can change drastically with context and intent — there is no arguing that.

What they and the pro-n-word folks may have missed out on, however, is that context and intent are both open to broad interpretation, and what seems harmless to one person might be highly offensive to another.

Legislation will probably never change the way we talk or the words we use, but it is imperative we remember that what is legal is not necessarily decent or culturally sensitive. Every freedom is subject to abuse.

Reach columnist Andrew Brown at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.