How far is too far? This question has been asked thousands of times over centuries about a variety of issues. In particular, this question has been asked in the United States of America in regards to the first amendment.

Students, passing faculty and even a high school tour group on the Oval between noon and 3 p.m. on Sept. 25 witnessed the spectacle of an open air preacher engaging with a crowd of students. Matt Bourgault, with Consuming Fire Campus Ministries of Neosho, quoted scripture in conjunction with his sometimes-inflammatory opinions on sin and God. Bourgault also entertained questions from the crowd.

Bourgault offended many in the crowd with his unapologetic views of the Christian faith. Reporters on the scene spoke to both Christians and non-Christians and found both were upset by parts of Bourgault’s message. Non-Christians objected to being portrayed as sinners, while Christians objected to what they saw as misrepresentations of the New Testament faith, which is based on love and the grace of God rather than judgment and hatred.

However, it is also worth noting members of the crowd took offense to the cursing and vulgar actions of others in the audience. We might speculate that Bourgault himself may have been offended by the crowd’s actions. On the other hand he may have gotten just the response he was seeking. 

At one point, violence threatened to break out. Police stepped in and it was averted. Perhaps that’s the answer to the question posed above: Does the right to free speech become curtailed when talking gives way to physical fighting? If so, we still have to ask, where do we draw the line?

Should it be at the moment one person is offended? Perhaps the line should be set when more than five, or maybe a majority of people are offended. If we take this route, does the minority opinion have a say?

Federal and local government agencies have tried to corral the first amendment over the years on the grounds of moral virtues and common decency. Obviously, some of their attempts succeeded, as there are now regulations regarding everything from print media to radio to television content.

Regardless of regulations and laws, there will always be gray areas and there will always be those citizens who push the line or find loopholes.

Surely a creative person could argue that giving Bourgault a left hook to the temple is one form of free speech. That person probably wouldn’t win that suit, but it would be interesting to hear the discourse.

In truth there is no magic answer as to how far is too far. Some would say it depends on the situation. Some would say it would be majority rule, and still others would say those who make the most noise set the rules.

We in the newspaper business are passionate about freedom of speech. Our profession depends on it. So, while we may have been individually offended by part of the debate raging on the Oval Wednesday, we have to believe both Bourgault and his audience have the right to say their piece, even if each thinks the other is dead wrong.