Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver

Why wouldn’t “the bird” be considered a “fighting word”?

“Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words 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.”” (www.law.cornell.edu.)


17 posted on 03/18/2019 10:22:58 AM PDT by ryderann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ryderann
words which “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

So, that would include racist, islamophobe, fascist, privilaged white male, etc?

.

23 posted on 03/18/2019 11:40:37 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson