"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[moriah]

21. In the example I gave, I was referring more toward the usual idea of "fighting words".....

..... directed at an individual, personally, and not as the Snyder v. Phelps case held -- that the Phelps group's hate speech was public speech, not personal speech.

In other words, yes, "fighting words" are held by many states and municipalities as chargeable offenses -- usually harassment, since they are directed at one particular person... and mens rea must be established. If a guy was only joking about screwing your mom, and really didn't mean to piss you off by saying it, in Arkansas it wouldn't be illegal. But calculated speech directly designed to provoke a violent response is not constitutionally protected.

In the case of the video in question, I still like the Onion's take on the matter. I even posted it with a NSFW warning to my FB friends who I let see my political opinions -- particularly because of the line: "Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day."