Comment by 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.
the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments
It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech.
If I'm wrong, then cite its use.