Speaking Point: 1) Based on the evidence (witnesses and Today Show video), Kim Kardashian has a great case to file criminal charges against the female anti-fur activist.
Speaking Point: 2) While initially filed as a non-criminal battery report with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, "[Kardashian] does not feel the woman who threw the flour at her should get away with it and that she should be her accountable for her actions," TMZ reported, citing sources to Kardashian.
Speaking Point: 3) And, rightfully so, as our nation's laws serve to protect citizens against violent acts.
Speaking Point: 4) While this is America, and the First Amendment generally protects the freedom of speech, it does not protect acts of violence.
Speaking Point: 5) The female anti-fur activist may argue no harm was done because it was just "flour." Well, suppose Kim Kardashian is allergic to "flour" and she suffers a violent allergic reaction? Or, what is the next protest tool for a PETA activist? Lye? Bleach? Battery acid? Kim should criminal press charges to deter this kind of criminal conduct.
Speaking Point: 6) On the civil side, Kim Kardashian is unlikely to file a lawsuit involving charges such as assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a civil suit, the remedy is usually the payment of money. So, here, Kim would have to prove that the defendant is liable for damages. And, the flour incident probably increased Kim's popularity so damages may be hard to prove.
Speaking Point: 7) And, there are other factors in justifying the filing of a civil lawsuit in this matter including but not limited to the cost of litigation, the amount likely to be awarded, the financial position of the defendant, etc.
Speaking Point: 8) Interestingly, the civil lawsuit game changer would be if Kim Kardashian can prove that female anti-fur activist acted not as an individual but in the capacity as an employee or agent of PETA (who denied any involvement). If so, then let the games begin!