Simone Lawson
Fighting words are spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker. In United States constitutional law, the term describes words that inflict injury or would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It 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 the prevention and punishment of [which]... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | Spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker |
| Legal status | Not protected by the First Amendment |
| Context | The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is important and may spell the difference between protected, albeit offensive, speech and fighting words that will justify an arrest |
| Examples | Calling police officers "m--- f---" and threatening to kill them and "kick their a---"; <co: 2>calling police officers obscene names and threatening to "blow their heads off"; depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty under the headline "Mother Fucker Acquitted" |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment
- The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is important
- The fighting words doctrine is a limitation to freedom of speech
- The Supreme Court held that an incitement of a riot is not protected by the First Amendment
- The Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs
Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It 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 the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
In Matthews, the defendant's insulting and threatening speech toward police officers constituted such "fighting words" rather than constitutionally protected speech. The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is very important in such cases and may spell the difference between protected, albeit offensive, speech and fighting words that will justify an arrest.
In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the Supreme Court found that a student newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty under the headline “Mother Fucker Acquitted” was protected speech. This demonstrates that public colleges cannot constitutionally punish indecent or offensive speech merely by branding the speech “fighting words”.
The Constitution's Complicity in Slavery: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is important
The entire context in which a citizen's words are spoken is important when determining whether they are protected by the constitution. In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but there are limitations to this right. The 'fighting words' doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, defines fighting words as those that inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
The context in which these words are spoken is crucial in determining whether they are protected by the constitution. For example, in Matthews, the defendant's insulting and threatening speech towards police officers was considered 'fighting words' and therefore not protected by the constitution. The defendant called the officers offensive names and threatened to kill them and 'kick their a---'. The context of the situation, including the proximity to the officers and the threatening nature of the words, was important in this case.
On the other hand, in a case involving a student newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty, the Supreme Court found that this was protected speech. The context of the cartoon, including the fact that it was a form of symbolic speech, was likely a factor in this decision.
Similarly, in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court held that the burning of a United States flag did not constitute fighting words. Again, the context of this symbolic speech was important in determining that it was protected by the First Amendment.
These cases demonstrate that the context in which words are spoken is critical in determining whether they are protected by the constitution. The nature of the words, the proximity and relationship of the speaker to the listener, and the potential for inciting violence are all factors that must be considered.
Citizenship Rights: Constitution's Promotion and Protection
You may want to see also
The fighting words doctrine is a limitation to freedom of speech
In *Matthews*, the defendant's insulting and threatening speech towards police officers constituted such 'fighting words' rather than constitutionally protected speech. Therefore, the disorderly conduct conviction based on speech did not violate the defendant's constitutional freedom of speech. The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is very important in such cases and may spell the difference between protected, albeit offensive, speech and fighting words that will justify an arrest.
In *Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri*, the Supreme Court found that a student newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty under the headline 'Mother Fucker Acquitted' was protected speech. A federal appeals court also invalidated, on free speech grounds, a punishment for a fraternity that hosted an 'ugly woman' contest featuring a performer in blackface. These cases demonstrate that public colleges cannot constitutionally punish indecent or offensive speech merely by branding the speech 'fighting words'.
In *Feiner v. People of State of New York* (1951), the Supreme Court held that an incitement of a riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment. In *Texas v. Johnson* (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are 'a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs'.
Disabled Parking: A Constitutional Right?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court held that an incitement of a riot is not protected by the First Amendment
Fighting words are spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker. In United States constitutional law, the term describes words that inflict injury or would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It 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 the prevention and punishment of [which]... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
In Matthews, the defendant's insulting and threatening speech toward police officers constituted such "fighting words" rather than constitutionally protected speech, and, therefore, the disorderly conduct conviction based on speech did not violate the defendant's constitutional freedom of speech. While in close proximity to two police officers who were talking with him, he called the officers "m--- f---," among other things, and threatened to kill the officers and "kick their a---." The entire context in which the citizen's words are spoken is very important in such cases and may spell the difference between protected, albeit offensive, speech and fighting words that will justify an arrest.
In Feiner v. People of State of New York (1951), the Supreme Court held that an incitement of a riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs."
In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the Supreme Court found that a student newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty under the headline “Mother Fucker Acquitted” was protected speech. However, this does not mean that public colleges can constitutionally punish indecent or offensive speech merely by branding the speech “fighting words”.
In Nwanguma v. Trump, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Trump’s speech did not cause incitement under the Brandenburg standard and, therefore, qualified as protected speech under the First Amendment. The appeals court pointed out that Trump also specifically said, “Don’t hurt ’em” in reference to the protestors.
Florida's Constitutional Protections: Business Rights and Freedoms
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs
In United States constitutional law, the term 'fighting words' describes words that inflict injury or would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The fighting words doctrine is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in *Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire*. It 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 the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
In *Matthews*, the defendant's insulting and threatening speech toward police officers constituted such "fighting words" rather than constitutionally protected speech. Therefore, the disorderly conduct conviction based on speech did not violate the defendant's constitutional freedom of speech.
In *Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri*, the Supreme Court found that a student newspaper cartoon depicting a policeman raping the Statue of Liberty under the headline “Mother Fucker Acquitted” was protected speech. This demonstrates that public colleges cannot constitutionally punish indecent or offensive speech merely by branding the speech “fighting words”.
In *Texas v. Johnson* (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs".
Chaplains' Constitutional Protection: What Does the Law Say?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Fighting words are spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker. In United States constitutional law, the term describes words that inflict injury or would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
No, fighting words are not protected by the constitution. The fighting words doctrine is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The fighting words doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942. It 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 the prevention and punishment of [which]... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
