Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence and to place the targets of the words in danger of harm. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction.

United States

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." In the United States, constitutional law generally refers to the provisions of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). ... Page one of the original copy of the Constitution. ... In its decision, Chaplinsky v. ... The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government. ... An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone. ... Breach of the peace is a legal term used in constitutional law in English-speaking countries, and in a wider public order sense in Britain. ...

Chaplinsky decision

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that Organized crime is crime carried out systematically by formal criminal organizations. ... Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. ...

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Breach of the peace is a legal term used in constitutional law in English-speaking countries, and in a wider public order sense in Britain. ...

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Post-Chaplinsky

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets." // Burning the Flag of the United States Flag desecration is a blanket term applied to various acts that intentionally deface or dishonor a flag, most often a national flag (though other flags can be defaced as well). ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. ... Theres something happening here What it is aint exactly clear Theres a man with a gun over there Telling me I got to beware I think its time we stop, children, whats that sound Everybody look whats going down Theres battle lines being...

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the court overturned a statute prohibiting cross-burning on the grounds that the specific statute was overbroad; ie., that it risked proscribing lawful conduct. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments. R. A. V., Petitioner, v. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...

Canada

In Canada, freedom of speech is generally protected under Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Criminal Code, however, limits these freedoms and provides for several forms of punishable hate speech. The form of punishable hate speech considered to encompass fighting words is identified in Section 319: ^[1] The Charter, signed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1981. ... The Canadian Criminal Code (formal title An Act respecting the Criminal Law) is the codification of most of the criminal offences and procedure in Canada. ...

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

– s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

Notes

1. ^ Stephen Brooks, Hate Speech and the Rights Cultures of Canada and the United States

External links

• What is the Fighting Words doctrine? from freedomforum.org.
• First Amendment Library entry on Fighting Words