The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]
Ad Hominem = Fighting Words
Posts
Total:
13
-->
@3RU7AL
The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace.
Did that set of circumstances occur on an online debate forum!
Bru7al always attempting to find and then speak the God Dammed Truth!
Thank you Bru7al. We need many more like you here on Earth.
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you even read your own link? Posters that read the 1st paragraph of a link, assume it supports their worldview, and then casually dismiss the rest of their link irk me with their cavalier intellectual laziness.
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you even read your own link? Posters that read the 1st paragraph of a link, assume it supports their worldview, and then casually dismiss the rest of their link irk me with their cavalier intellectual laziness.
"...the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction."
Harassing someone face to face by calling them by a title they already specifically asked you not to use would seem likely to provoke a violent reaction.
-->
@mustardness
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
What Are your thoughts on the Gooding v Wilson ruling?
SCOTUS does not deal in "likelys"
They deal in absolutes.
I'll sum up the case for you since you tend to skim. The SCOTUS said specific words that must be punished every time it is uttered for inciting violence must be proved by the state that the exact language will 100% lead to violence every time the word is uttered.
So the words... "White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” were struck down as not fighting words by the SCOTUS from Gooding v Wilson because the statute was overbroad and it could not be shown that these specific phrases or specific words will always cause violence.
I imagine calling a husky person with a deep voice and long hair "sir" would not be fighting words either, because the word "sir" in itself does not lead to violence 100% of the time. To include preconditions would make the statute overbroad as in the Gooding case. You can see how this would play out in the SCOTUS simply looking at the Gooding case. The court deals in absolutes.
-->
@Greyparrot
"In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.
Gooding was the nail in the coffin—if the fighting words exception has any real vitality left at all (and many commentators, including Nadine Strossen, think it is essentially dead) the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction." [LINK]
"Facts. The Appellee was convicted of using abusive language towards another when he made statements such as “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.”� “If you put your hands on me again I’ll cut you to pieces.”� At the time these comments were made the Appellee was being moved away from an army induction center where he was protesting the war." [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
That's your thoughts on the case? really?
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean seriously...do you just google your worldview...find a snippet out of context and without a shred of critical thought and immediately accept this...in this case critical thought as to the basic operation of what exactly a SCOTUS is supposed to do...namely uphold or OVERTURN convictions...
"Facts. The Appellee was convicted of using abusive language towards another when he made statements such as “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.”� “If you put your hands on me again I’ll cut you to pieces.”� At the time these comments were made the Appellee was being moved away from an army induction center where he was protesting the war." [LINK]
Are you the product of a failed American education system that has completely failed to teach people how to critically think and instead rely on Authority to indoctrinate them with dogma?
The Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally OVERBROAD.
The snippet you googled is a description of the case BEFORE it went to the SCOTUS...not AFTER.
Good lord.
-->
@Greyparrot
"Writing for the majority in Gooding, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. invalidated the Georgia statute, interpreting Chaplinsky to apply only to language that had “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” The Court analyzed the history of Georgia’s application of the statute and concluded that it had been invoked repeatedly to punish the use of communications that were “not ‘fighting words’ as Chaplinsky defines them.” Thus, the Court concluded that the statute was overbroad because it was “susceptible of application to protected expression.”
The Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Wilson’s words would likely have been punishable under a more narrowly drawn statute drafted in conformance to the requirements of Chaplinsky.
The Court’s decision in effect limited the application of the “fighting words” exception. When classifying expression as fighting words, courts would look at a communication’s tendency to produce an immediate and violent reaction rather than the offensiveness of the language used.
The Court’s decision also apparently induced, albeit unintentionally, a dramatic shift in interpretation of the overbreadth doctrine. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger and Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote scathing dissents, chastising the Court for declaring unconstitutional a statute that “has little potential for application outside the realm of ‘fighting words.’"
One year later, in Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), the Court substantially limited the scope of its authority to overturn statutes, requiring that in future cases “the overbreadth of the statute must not only be real but substantial as well” to justify invalidation. The relative infrequency of contemporary applications of the overbreadth doctrine is thus indirectly but clearly traceable to the majority opinion in Gooding." [LINK]
I'm not seeing the "100% of the time" stipulation you mentioned.
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol I'm done with this thread. Go google up some more dogma.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I'm done with you. Go google up some more dogma.
The Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Wilson’s words would likely have been punishable under a more narrowly drawn statute drafted in conformance to the requirements of Chaplinsky.
It appears that the statute itself was struck down, despite the fact that Wilson’s words would likely have been punishable under a more narrowly drawn statute drafted in conformance to the requirements of Chaplinsky.
I'm still not seeing the "100% of the time" stipulation you mentioned.
-->
@Greyparrot
No. They deal primarily in oppinion.The court deals in absolutes.
Scientists deal in cosmically absolute principles/laws.
Trumpanzees deal in narccissm, ego, lies, immorality etc.
See photo of hybrid Orange-Franken-Trumpanzees here