What is free speech? I tend towards a very broad view of what should be protected, but the exact parameters of free speech never cease to intrigue me.

Is religious speech so different from political speech that it should be afforded a different type of protection? If so, why? Should religious speech be more protected than political speech, or vice versa?

What about "offensive" speech? I'm offended by Marxist drivel, and by statements deriding the rights of man. Should I be able to sue?

The other day I discussed the distinction (one I'm not sure should exist, except it does) with someone who opined that in the United States, people are more horrified by extreme intolerance of religious viewpoints than by extreme intolerance of political viewpoints, and she stated that in particular, Americans are more horrified by people being killed over their religious views than by people being killed over their political views. When I ventured that fortunately, neither type of killing happens very often in the UD, she said that Americans are more horrified by religion-based killings in other countries than by political killings, and I've been mulling it over.

As an American cultural phenomenon, is this true? Are we, say, more horrified by a tyrannical regime which murders people for their religious views than we would be if the same regime murders the political opposition? If so, is it because of the constitutional traditions, or is it because religion is seen as analogous to being accident of birth, like race, whereas politics is seen as a matter of opinion?

But aren't both matters of conscience, and equally worthy of human rights protection? Should one be more protected than the other?

And what about that troubling nexus between politics and religion?

Sorry if I'm seeing more questions than answers.

While it's easy to pat ourselves on the back because few Americans are murdered for their religious or political views, and while we are lucky to have a deeply ingrained belief in free speech (along with a Constitution protecting both), I've long been troubled by the fact that there is a practical distinction -- in both a legal and cultural sense -- between religious speech and political speech. This distinction seems to have arisen out of the Establishment Clause, the intent of which was to keep government out of religion. Obviously, keeping the government out of religion is a very wise thing, and the founders were quite aware of the dangers of the theocratic state. However, as the government entangled itself in more and more aspects of people's lives, religious disentanglement became ever trickier. In particular, once the government became the guarantor of education and education became compulsory, then anything smacking of religious education became taboo. This ultimately led to a strange anomaly where students and teachers were allowed to voice political opinions, but not religious opinions, in effect meaning that political speech is more protected than religious speech. Should such a distinction have ever been made?

Enter the recent notion of different treatment for so-called "offensive speech." For the life of me, I cannot understand why I should be less (or more) entitled to be offended by, say, Communism than fundamentalist Islam. There are a lot of things I find offensive, but the rule I grew up with was that offensive views have a right to be voiced whether I like them or not.

Like many schools and universities, the Los Angeles City College has some sort of code prohibiting "offensive" speech. Recently, a student there was apparently called a "fascist bastard" by a professor for voicing his religious opposition to gay marriage in a public speaking class. The professor also threatened to get him expelled, and the student has sued. From an LA Times editorial:

When a dispute between a teacher and a student ends up in court, at least one of the parties involved deserves detention. Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College who is suing the Community College District, says he was bullied by the teacher of his public-speaking course after he delivered a speech that included his religious views about marriage.

If Lopez's claims -- including allegations that his teacher, John Matteson, called him a "fascist bastard" and told him to "ask God what your grade is" -- are accurate, Matteson's behavior was unconscionable. Even in a college classroom, where there is a tradition of professors provoking lively discussion, his words would be a violation of a professional trust. The teacher also would have crossed a legal line. As Lopez's lawyers point out in their federal complaint, the courts have ruled that public schools may not discriminate against student speech because it is religious in character.

Last week, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit on Jonathan Lopez's behalf against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District, including Professor Matteson, citing the professor's clear violation of the student's First Amendment protections.

"When students are given such open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views," said ADF Senior Counsel David French. "Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs.

"Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance." (Shortly after the November election, Matteson told his entire class, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard." I apologize for the verbatim reports, but you'll note Matteson's epithets are not distinguished by their variety.)

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs," said French. "Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor's assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion."

But I'm wondering whether it would have made any difference had the student been an atheist who believed same sex marriage would be bad for society. I also think it's very doubtful that this professor would have behaved the same way had the student been a Muslim voicing a Koran-based view of same sex marriage.

Selective censorship aside, what I don't see is how it makes any difference whether a point of view is driven by religion, by a particular religion, or by no religion at all.

I think it's a big mistake to prohibit "offensive" speech, because there is absolutely no way to define it. This could easily lead to people becoming so thin-skinned as to consider any disagreement on almost any issue to be offensive. And once that happens, once tolerance is replaced by zero tolerance, people may find themselves more likely to kill each other over their views, not less.

Does this mean that people have a right to insult each other? If a student delivers a diatribe against "sodomy," and people who are into such practices are offended (as the professor was here), don't they also have as much right to be offensive?

If we put aside the power imbalance inherent in the student/professor relationship, what about the simple right to offend?

Is a religious opinion that someone is an abominable sodomite more protected than a political opinion that someone a fascist bastard? Is a religious opinion that some races are inferior to others more protected than a political opinion that some races are inferior? Is a religious opinion that some religions are inferior to others more protected than a political opinion that some religions are inferior?

None of it strikes me as worth getting killed over. My worry is that once the state draws a line over certain things that can't be said, people will be more -- not less -- likely to think that certain opinions merit death.