Makes sense, actually. > The list ranked 50 female students and in describing them, rated their body parts and used racial slurs. The teen also is being accused of printing out the list and passing it around during lunch periods at the high school on Jan. 14, the Tribune reported. ie, creating and distributing what amounts to hate-speech. This goes much further than a hot-or-not list, rather definitively landing on t…
Hate speech is constitutionally protected in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed.
Well yeah. "protected speech" and "[specific] content-based" are good reasons to strike it down. Only defining certain things as offensive enough is just asking to become obsolete and have people toe the line. But note that "fighting words" are specifically not protected, not that it particularly applies to the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
Meanwhile, we have successful cases for harassment. Are you arguing that verbal harassment is constitutionally protected?