These are the guidelines of this "free speech social network": https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.p

These are the guidelines of this "free speech social network": https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf Apart from the clear US-centric worldview of acceptable and unacceptable speech (e.g., using the US list of foreign terrorist organizations - for instance, many countries would not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization), I don't understand the "fighting words" portion. It references a US Supreme Court case, Terminiello v. Chicago, in which the speaker was ruled to have not been a "clear and present danger" or have used "fighting words" - so it's not clear what "fighting words" are. The term was defined in an earlier case, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where it was ruled that calling someone "a damned fascist" was not protected by the First Amendment - is that the point of view that Parler takes? Meanwhile, in US jurisprudence, the "clear and present danger" test was replaced by the "imminent lawless action" one in 1969 (Brandenburg v. Ohio), which specifically constitutionally guarantees quite a bit more free speech, including non-imminent advocacy of breaking laws. Does Parler follow the "clear and present danger" standard or the "imminent lawless action" one? Also, the network bans "pornography," "obscenity," and "indecency" (which goes farther than the FCC, which permits "indecent" content on TV or the radio between 10 pm and 6 am, and doesn't regulate them in print etc.) and adds the suggestion, "Make sure everyone in your photos has clothes." Are shirtless men acceptable? Shirtless women (permitted in public in at least six US states)? Are medical diagrams acceptable? (Content is merely indecent and not obscene if it has "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value".)