Simple assault refers to a threat by a person to use force, whether verbal or physical, against another person. If a defendant acts in a way that threatens the victim with fear of violence, he or she is guilty of simple assault. Rhode Island's simple assault law is objective, and if a defendant gives a person reasonable fear of violence, then the defendant is guilty of simple assault.

For instance, if someone threatens another verbally to kill them, they are guilty of simple assault even though the actual killing did not take place. Similarly, if someone tries to punch you but you dodge the punch, and you feared potential harm, their action is considered simple assault. 

The simple assault law works alongside the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of free speech and association, but that right is not absolute. Some forms of speech cause injury to the other person, or may cause the other person to commit an offense, and the First Amendment does not protect them. True threats are one of the types of speech not protected by the First Amendment.

A true threat refers to a kind of speech in which the speaker expresses a serious intent to commit unlawful violence to a person or a group of people. The #FirstAmendment doesn’t protect true threats, but it is quite difficult to distinguish between a true threat and a mere statement with language that is seemingly offensive or violent. It is even more challenging to argue in court about what is necessary to charge a defendant with a true threat.

Americans value their rights and freedoms as afforded by the First Amendment and the Constitution, however the law also protects us from abuse by others. The people living in Rhode Island are subject to both the simple assault law and the provisions of the First Amendment.

The question for debate, do you think Rhode Island's simple assault law interferes with the First Amendment?