← Back to context

Comment by FuriouslyAdrift

9 years ago

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/201...

11 comments

FuriouslyAdrift

Reply
jacksnipe  9 years 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  9 years 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  9 years 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).

      1 reply →

kristianc  9 years 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.

  • FuriouslyAdrift  9 years 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.

  • lr4444lr  9 years 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  9 years 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.

      1 reply →