Are "No Cursing" laws unconstitutional?

[John Dibble]

The laws are unconstitutional if the speech does not cause any tangible harm to a person. If someone is offended by cursing, they are not tangibly harmed - you have no constitutional right to never be offended.

[John Dibble]

The issue here has nothing to do with a constitutional right to not be offended. Rather, it is about how broad free speech is. Your interpretation is incompatible with 200 years of constitutional law.

Evidence? I don't know if there's ever been a ruling or statement on cursing laws in regards to the first amendment.

[John Dibble]

Libel does not cause any tangible harm to a person. I assure you that has been illegal for some time.

Libel is written, slander is spoken.

But, since that's besides the point, if Bob says Jim's restaraunt uses horse meat when it doesn't, and Jim's business goes down because of this rumor, there is tangible harm(maybe I should have been more specific, it's not just physical harm that applies, since speech can't hurt you at all). Further though, this is once again besides the point - a curse word isn't slander by any means, and as far as I know can't really cause any harm to another person.

[John Dibble]

I was attacking the tangible harm premise. If opebo tells some three year old girl to suck his dick, that does her no tangible harm. I don't know too many people that would argue it's protected free speech under the first amendment.

Well, I guess that's just differences in what we mean by 'tangible harm'. Admittedly some things are more tangible than others.