this title has been censored to promote tolerance

i've been following the complaint filed against georgia tech on free speech and religious expression grounds, and while i'm only slightly informed about it at the moment, here are my first thoughts:

while it proports to be about free speech, from the complaint at least it seems more about two students complaining that other people with differing opinions aren't institutionally chastised. the free speech argument is based on the school's speech policy, which prohibits speech being used to "injure, harm, malign, or harass" someone or group, as well as prohibiting assualt, vandalism, and denigration. none of these restrictions are per se unconsitutional, as there is much case law on how speech which is harmful (harassment, fighting words, vandalism, libel and slander, etc.). whether they were enforced lawfully is another question which discovery will better shed light on, since the complaint is neither a reliable source for the facts nor does it go into sufficient detail (though from what i've seen elsewhere, the instances cited in the complaint seem to be at the least vulgar and crude).

i admit that i'm biased against their political position, but i just have a problem seeing the plaintiffs as oppressed. regardless of the thin line between competing rights that this complaint straddles (and there is one, though one that's already been argued before), i just invision this coming back to bite the conservative christians in the ass. much like the equal access act, conservative christians could find any ruling in their favor to be used against them. it's not that hard for a skilled lawyer to draw a reasonable line from unrestricted expression of religious beliefs (no matter how harmful) against homosexuality to unrestricted expression in support of homosexuality (which could be based on religious belief)--which would make it difficult for people like the plaintiffs to block pride events or plays with titular vaginas.

which brings me to the tin man's suggestion that we just form our own religion. our beliefs could have the same imprimature of legitimacy that others claim for the bible, DOMA and DADT could be attacked on first amendment grounds, and my bar tab could be considered tithing and therefore would be tax deductible. excellent.