Enlighten me, please (IANAL): Is not tort law dealing with civil, not criminal or Constitutional law?
Yes. However, civil law is a good indicator of culture as recognized by law and various bodies of law regularly inform each other. The law of IIED is an illustration of how the axiom that my right to swing my arm ends at your nose applies to non-physical harm as legitimately as to physical harm.
Of course, the proponents of limitingconstitutional protections to enumerated rights may point out that there isn't a constitutional right to not be punched in the face. However, I have a hard time imagining a court protecting my right of freedom of non-verbal speech as exercised by punching, say neo-Nazis, in the face.
But Micro's insistence that the freedom of speech is not abridged by the needs of other people is not correct. Political speech is almost always protected. Advertising is afforded substantially lower protections. Criminal speech--generally, if one avoids the sophistry of discussing how anti-sedition laws can outlaw constitutionally protected speech--is not protected.
So far as tort law is concerned, I'm not aware of any cases where suits for libel/slander were defended on constitutional grounds. I can't imagine that there has never been a case where a government actor sought to suppress libel or slander, so maybe someone else can address the constititutional protections afforded to libelous/slanderous speech. I'm not aware of any.
