Originally Posted by
FBinNY
Yes I said assault, and I stand by that. And this case is a (minor) example, which supports the statement. But there are many direct assault by government which you can find easily enough via the ACLU site, or net search for "free speech prosecution".
I agree that speech rights don't protect one from reaction, nor are they intended to. But public attitudes about what is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be protected speech are an important part of the social fabric. We live in a society not only of laws, but of mores and expectations. Though government isn't involved directly in campus censorship, it' doing little to prevent it or protect victims and nobody cares because those being gagged are unsympathetic.
Also, when there are prosecutions, general public expectations and attitudes are as important as law, since a jury will be deciding the first round. ortuantely -- so far -- appellate judges tend to be very strong defenders of the 1st amendment.
Your use of free speech in this case seems to imply speech without consequences.
That ain't how it works. Everyone else has free speech too, and that includes the freedom to ask for investigation of possible threats, calls for boycotting, etc.