Fighting Words In Speech Analysis

In the wake of school shootings, cracking down on potential threats has become priority. Not only are there threats of mass violence, but racist speech and sexist speech, that some would define as fighting words. A question to ask is when does speech become a fighting word. Having to decide what speech is protected by the first amendment, worthwhile, and what speech has no social value and is not protected, worthless, is controversial. Speech that is defined as worthless include: lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and fighting words. Focusing on fighting words and the ever developing world of technology, we will examine a present-day situation of words that wound and compare them to past cases.
Universities and colleges are known to be more
He was arrested based on a New Hampshire law that prohibits speaking offensive or annoying words in public. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “fighting words” was defined as offensive language, even it does not provoke a fight and fight-provoking language that tends to incite violence or an immediate break of peace. (Tedford & Herbeck, 2013, p. 188) Thus fowl language could be considered worthless under this particular ruling. Not only could one be prosecuted for fight-provoking but fowl language as well according to the Chaplinsky
New York. Irving Feiner gave an inflammatory speech to a diverse crowd. He called for African Americans to revolt against their oppression. After the crowd become restless, Feiner was asked three times to stop. He was arrested and convicted for violating New York’s disorderly conduct law. Supreme Court upheld his conviction based on a clear and present danger of inciting a riot is not protected. Justice Black did not agree with the majority and believed the police should have protected the speaker, not arrest him. Examining former cases, the courts have stated that forbidding certain words is overbroad. Looking at a case like Cohen v. California, The Supreme Court overturned the original conviction of offensive conduct for wearing a jacket with “fuck the draft” written on it. Fighting words were then narrowed down to being directed to another to create danger. They also acknowledged the difference between cognitive and emotion meanings of words. The justices argued that even though the speech was disturbing and offensive, there was no clear and present danger. According to the Cohen case the speech has to be directed to another in such a way as to create danger. In the case of the Feminist United Group, the comments were shocking, but no evidence of actual danger or violence was present.
Soon after, Gooding v. Wilson case was overturned based on the law going beyond fighting words, making it overbroad. The Supreme Court