5 ms·

Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases. Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonp

Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases. Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.9a1a7eb38d29 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

jsjohnst 9y ago
Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- leereeves 9y ago
  For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.
jacksnipe 9y ago
That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment. Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.
- FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
  I must have misread the parent comment then. 'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption. I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not. This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.
  - jacksnipe 9y ago
    I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).
    - FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
      To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.
kristianc 9y ago
That's talking about hate speech. Explicitly dangerous speech, or 'fighting words', as acknowledged in the article, are not a protected class of speech under the First Amendment, as established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  I challenge you to find even one instance of where citation of the Chaplinksy case has ever been used ever since the ruling itself to defend the merit of a clamp down on open speech anywhere in the U.S. It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.
  - kristianc 9y ago
    There doesn't have to be. The decision shows that the Supreme Court intended to exempt a narrow range of abusive speech from constitutional protection. It's true that the definition of 'fighting words' has narrowed considerably over the years, but the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments.
    - lr4444lr 9y ago
      the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech. If I'm wrong, then cite its use.
- FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
  To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

jsjohnst 9y ago

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

leereeves 9y ago
For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.

jacksnipe 9y ago

That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment. Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.

FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
I must have misread the parent comment then. 'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption. I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not. This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.
- jacksnipe 9y ago
  I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).
  - FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
    To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

kristianc 9y ago

That's talking about hate speech. Explicitly dangerous speech, or 'fighting words', as acknowledged in the article, are not a protected class of speech under the First Amendment, as established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.

lr4444lr 9y ago
I challenge you to find even one instance of where citation of the Chaplinksy case has ever been used ever since the ruling itself to defend the merit of a clamp down on open speech anywhere in the U.S. It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.
- kristianc 9y ago
  There doesn't have to be. The decision shows that the Supreme Court intended to exempt a narrow range of abusive speech from constitutional protection. It's true that the definition of 'fighting words' has narrowed considerably over the years, but the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech. If I'm wrong, then cite its use.
FuriouslyAdrift 9y ago
To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed. 'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not. 'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.