The First Amendment Does not Mean "No Repercussions on Speech"
Calls for student editor to resign after 'F**k Bush' column - CNN.com
College students will do dumb things, that's pretty much a given. (As an acquaintance of mine once said, "No one has to apologize for anything they do while in college.") So, given the natural stupidity of virtually all college students, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the editor of The Rocky Mountain Collegian wrote an editorial stating (apparently in full): "Taser this: F**k Bush." Naturally, the school's College Republican chapter took offense to this and began calls for the editor resignation and boycotts of those businesses that continue to advertise in the paper until the editor resigns.
I'm not interested in debating the wisdom of this editorial. (Sadly, there are people in the Delaware blogosphere who would not only defend this, but find it to be an intellectually stimulating argument,) Rather, I want to focus on one of the comments contained in the article from CNN:
The vice President of the Young Democrats stated:
"At some point we have to stand up for our rights. [McSwane, the editor] was just showing that speech, even when explicit, should always be protected by the First Amendment."
I haven't seen anyone denying his right to say what he did, although I think a case could be made on indecency grounds if the asterisks above weren't in the original editorial. Rather, this debate is actually about whether there will be consequences for speech. You have the right to speak, but nothing in our First Amendment rights protects us from private responses against our speech.
As an example, if I state that someone's wife is a whore, then I can expect her husband to take some sort of action in response. If he comes to punch me in the nose, will he (and should he) be dissuaded by an appeal to the First Amendment? Of course not. I exercised my right to free speech, there was no governmental action involved so there was no violation of the First Amendment, but the potential for private action is not nullified by the First Amendment. (As the bumper sticker says, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law...' don't you understand?")
The editor of the paper was within his rights to run this editorial (with the note above about obscenity laws as a disclaimer), but at the same time, the College Republicans are within their rights to call for his resignation and the associated boycott. The First Amendment is not a blanket protection against responsibility and consequences for our actions.