Comment by 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.
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.
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).
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.