The right to freedom of speech, included in the #FirstAmendment, has long been a bone of contention. Issues related to this pop up from time to time, sparking heated debates among citizens and lawmakers alike.   

Those that are for pure free speech mention the contradictory laws that individual states come up with. Rhode Island’s simple assault law is an excellent illustration of how different laws interfere with Americans’ freedom of speech. To understand how the two concepts contradict each other, you should first familiarize yourself with their definitions. 

So what is freedom of speech? Well, it’s a policy that grants citizens the liberty to speak their minds freely. Whether you want to criticize or praise the government, this right means you can speak without the fear of being intimidated or censored. You can even use offensive words and phrases if that is the best way to relay your message. 

In Rhode Island, an individual can be charged with simple assault if they threaten to use force against another person. It doesn’t matter whether or not the person actually follows through on the threat, interfering with people’s freedom of speech applies in this case to verbal and physical threats. 

In other words, if an individual says something that makes you fear for your life or safety, you can pursue charges for simple assault. Unfortunately, this regulation doesn’t state the specific words that define a verbal threat. It means that some words, considered acceptable based on Americans’ right to free speech, can be perceived as a threat in Rhode Island. 

It’s important to note that breaking the simple assault law can result in a heavy fine of up to $1,000, or one could be put behind bars for a whole year. 

To avoid the contradiction, Rhode Island’s simple assault law should be modified. Instead of generalizing, it should indicate specific words and phrases to define a verbal threat, making it clear what is punishable under the law. This way residents will know the extent to which they can exercise their freedom of speech...but if there is a limit to our ‘freedom,’ it isn’t really freedom.