It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
he fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[3] It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Post-Chaplinsky[edit]The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[4] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said " the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972)[5][6]:548+and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)[7][6]:557,567—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was born in Soviet Union. While it collapsed before I learned speaking, a lot of its ideological elements never went away. In Belarus, saying that Lukashenko is a terrible president can get one jailed for "expressing lack of respect towards the authority". Is this a good approach to emulate? I do not think so.
It is one thing to be ostracised for behaving in a very confrontational manner in the society. It is another to persecute such a behavior legally. The former is a standard mode of operation in any society. The latter is a totalitarianism.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: slippery slope    personal problem   threats   speech  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: victims of the synogie shootings    speech   terrorism    
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Synogue shootings    words      
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra