5 ms·

Compulsory reading before any legal discussion of free speech— https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-cove

Compulsory reading before any legal discussion of free speech— https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-... "Trope Seven: "Fighting words" Example: "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015. No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words." In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence. That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope."

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Disclaimer: IANAL. I think "fighting words" is still a real thing in this sense: If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother, the law is not going to be surprised that they throw a punch at me. But in our current culture, it has to be narrow. Otherwise, Antifa is going to claim "fighting words" justifies them brawling in the streets. And, legally, it does not justify it at all.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >I think "fighting words" is still a real thing in this sense: If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother, the law is not going to be surprised that they throw a punch at me. You're incredibly mistaken, and if you act on this misinformation, you're going to find yourself in prison for assault and battery. The "fighting words" doctrine has been repeatedly narrowed over time by subsequent decisions (and may not even exist anymore), and never excused any violence in the first place. It was an exception to free speech, not the provisions in the criminal code that prohibit violence.
  - trynumber9 9y ago
    > If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother He'll be imprisoned for insulting someone's mother?
    - RickHull 9y ago
      No -- you've got the roles reversed: the claim is that he will be imprisoned if he assaults the insulter, claiming that the insulter provoked him with "fighting words"
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      Think a little more broadly here. If he thinks that someone would be justified in throwing a punch if he insults their mother, then he presumably thinks that he would be justified in throwing a punch in the opposite situation.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Disclaimer: IANAL. I think "fighting words" is still a real thing in this sense: If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother, the law is not going to be surprised that they throw a punch at me. But in our current culture, it has to be narrow. Otherwise, Antifa is going to claim "fighting words" justifies them brawling in the streets. And, legally, it does not justify it at all.

marcoperaza 9y ago
>I think "fighting words" is still a real thing in this sense: If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother, the law is not going to be surprised that they throw a punch at me. You're incredibly mistaken, and if you act on this misinformation, you're going to find yourself in prison for assault and battery. The "fighting words" doctrine has been repeatedly narrowed over time by subsequent decisions (and may not even exist anymore), and never excused any violence in the first place. It was an exception to free speech, not the provisions in the criminal code that prohibit violence.
- trynumber9 9y ago
  > If I go into a bar, and say the wrong thing about someone's mother He'll be imprisoned for insulting someone's mother?
  - RickHull 9y ago
    No -- you've got the roles reversed: the claim is that he will be imprisoned if he assaults the insulter, claiming that the insulter provoked him with "fighting words"
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Think a little more broadly here. If he thinks that someone would be justified in throwing a punch if he insults their mother, then he presumably thinks that he would be justified in throwing a punch in the opposite situation.