Are words alone sufficient for conviction? If so how are those words described? You seem to not understand the concept of 'elements', those are the exact things that must be proven for a conviction and are usually quite specific.
The language of the statute would strongly lead to that conclusion.
If so how are those words described?
Absent any further statutory language, they'd be described in the same way they were described under the old English laws against holding the King up to ridicule or contempt.