7 ms·

Neither of those are fighting words. See trope 7 from Ken White, a noted lawyer and first amendment expert - https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and

• vkou 9y ago
  If I were black, or Jewish, they would be direct threats of violence against me. A reasonable person would be expected to react violently to them. The sole purpose of that speech is eliciting a violent reaction from the recipient. This is not a theoretical problem. There have been ~50 hate killings in the US this year. (And we haven't even had a mass shooting.)
  • Karunamon 9y ago
    "fighting words" is a legal doctrine, not a personal one. It's not for you or I to define any more than you or I can define "murder".
    • vkou 9y ago
      It recognizes that there exists speech so reprehensible, that it cannot be tolerated in civilized society, and cannot, and should protected. Where judges chose to draw the bar is incidental to the fact that this exception exists. That they chose to draw it where they did is a legal question, not a moral one.
      • Karunamon 9y ago
        Where judges chose to draw the bar is incidental to the fact that this exception exists. The fact that judges draw the bar rather than you are me is critically important to prevent abuse. Innumerable boorish people would consider calling out their behavior to be "fighting words".
  • KGIII 9y ago
    They have to be credible, specific, and actionable.