Help with a Government question....Fighting Words Doctrine

[VenusRising]

I'm taking an online class, and we're covering the Bill of Rights. We are asked for an example of fighting words, but Googling and research has led me to more court reversals than anything. Obviously, swearing and slurs aren't necessarily considered fighting words.

So, what would be an example of fighting words?

I'm so confused.

Thanks for the help.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear VenusRising!

Let me see...

Fighting words are words that provoke anger in the listener.

How about: White males are too damned privileged; they want to rule the world, and they don't care who they run over in order to do it?

Or: Dogs have no place in any restaurant, anywhere.

Or: Cats should never be allowed out of doors.

I think my examples could be seen as fighting words...

What do you think?

I hope this helps!

Good luck with your class, not that you need it!

:hi:

[VenusRising]

2. Thanks for the luck.

I may need it for this.

I don't know if your examples are considered fighting words because they don't "inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace".

See why I'm confused?!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Oops, sorry!

I don't see how words can inflict injury...

But if you said something provocative enough, you could start a riot...

Something like: You and what army?

Or: You may not come into my house without a warrant.

Like that...

:shrug:

[VenusRising]

4. I don't know.

:(

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I AM sorry...

I hope someone smarter than I am will come along and tell you what you need...


:pals:

[elleng]

14. 'Lets kill them NOW!'

[steve2470]

6. When I was in law school we studied " incite to riot "

Is this what you're looking for, or the more ordinary brawling words ?

[VenusRising]

9. Very possible.

Does it help that they mention Chaplinsky v New Hampshire as the example?

The definition used states: "words that by their very utterance inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace".

I'm starting to think that "incite to riot" is what they're actually looking for, because both cases mentioned were overturned because censoring certain words (obscenities) do not constitute fighting words.

Thanks for helping me. :loveya:

[steve2470]

12. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Feiner v. New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

Feiner v. New York is a case more about inciting a riot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v._New_York

[Bunny]

7. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries?

:shrug:

[6000eliot]

8. Few people can survive a good French taunting.

[VenusRising]

10. LOL!

Thanks for the laugh. I need it cause this question is starting to piss me off.

I'm starting to think that the question itself is "Fighting Words".

:rofl:

[Chan790]

11. basically any verbal inducement to violence qualifies.

ie. "Want to take this outside, asshole?" or anything you say knowing it will provoke a violent reaction.

Generally, you're not going to find much by Googling because it's a nearly-useless legal concept; it's nearly impossible to make a case of it and usually results in a fight so any legal incidents resulting would likely focus on the fight itself and ignore the instigating fighting words. Hence all you found were cases where it was overturned because they were weak cases, there was nothing more to litigate than the instigating words. It's pretty hard to argue legally to the fact of intent of someone's words. How do you know they knew what they were saying would spark a melee?

[rug]

13. I've seen stronger fighting words.