Absolute free speech is a practical impossibility. Fighting words, by definition, are words that could result in the limitation of freedoms (including speech) o

Absolute free speech is a practical impossibility. Fighting words, by definition, are words that could result in the limitation of freedoms (including speech) of others. For example, what would you do if one person successfully convinces a crowd (through speech) to hang/kill their opponent? Given that the opponent would subsequently be dead (or maimed), how would they exercise their right to free speech? I can certainly agree with the paper, but not to the point of absolutism. The logical flaws in free speech absolutism betray very weak logical prowess, which would presumably mean the individual is deficient in cognitive ability.