- The Washington Times - Friday, November 4, 2011


Deborah Simmons was right to criticize an overly broad anti-bullying bill that may be approved by the D.C. Council (“Anti-bully legislation misguided,” Web, Oct. 30).

While the bill’s speech restrictions are aimed at unspecified “harm” or “disruption,” they could be interpreted so broadly as to violate court rulings such as Saxe v. State College Area School District (2001). That ruling declared “there is no categorical exception” to the First Amendment for speech in school that is “harassing” or causes trivial emotional harm, and that offensive speech on political topics is protected against harassment bans.

The bill’s open-ended restriction on references to people’s “distinguishing characteristics” is unconstitutionally vague under rulings like Botts v. State (2004). The bill’s violation of the First Amendment is even clearer as applied to adults in public parks and at the University of the District of Columbia, since adults and college students have broader free speech rights than high school students.


Senior attorney

Competitive Enterprise Institute


Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide