Protecting Free Speech or Committing a Crime? 1


To start the conversation, watch this video from Larry Wilmore.

You don’t have to go so far as to even think about hate speech. All you have to do is to remember the phrase “fighting words” as explained by WikiPedia.

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.”
.
.
.

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 that 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.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

So, was Pamela Geller protecting free speech or was she guilty of the crime of inciting disorder by using fighting words?


May 6, 2015

Reader RichardH has pointed out to me, that I should have read about the Post-Chaplinsky decisions in that Wikipedia article Fighting Words. You would have to be a lawyer to figure out what is prohibited, and what is not.

After I wrote the original post, I started to wonder how the American Nazi Party was allowed to hold a march in Skokie, Illinois where there was a large population of WWII Nazi Holocaust survivors. Conveniently, Wikipedia has the article National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.

Thanks to RichardH for keeping me honest.


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

One thought on “Protecting Free Speech or Committing a Crime?

  • SteveG Post author

    Reader RichardH has pointed out to me, that I should have read about the Post-Chaplinsky decisions in that Wikipedia article Fighting Words. You would have to be a lawyer to figure out what is prohibited, and what is not.

    After I wrote the original post, I started to wonder how the American Nazi Party was allowed to hold a march in Skokie, Illinois where there was a large population of WWII Nazi Holocaust survivors. Conveniently, Wikipedia has the article National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.

    Thanks to RichardH for keeping me honest.