General Discussion

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)

86. Fighting words doctrine doesn't apply...

Wed May 6, 2015, 11:58 AM

May 2015

That's incitement, telling others to engage in unlawful action.

Fighting words would come in if a person said to another person that their mother was a newt. Seriously. It's about saying something to another person that makes them want to act violently against you. It's about laws that would allow your arrest if you said something really offensive.

You can see why the doctrine has only been used once. And the time it was, a person was jailed for calling a town Marshall a fascist.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I heard an interesting take on the Geller/1st Amendment thing this morning ... [View all] 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 OP

I also heard that the town was aware that there could be trouble notadmblnd May 2015 #1

So no one, of, or in, good faith ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #2

Nope. notadmblnd May 2015 #4

cower in fear of the religious bullies who believe any criticisms are "fighting words" or msongs May 2015 #3

How is what Geller and co did, not the same as bullying? notadmblnd May 2015 #6

Easy... MellowDem May 2015 #8

they're both diseased notadmblnd May 2015 #13

It wasn't bullying because no muslim needed to be there or experience the offense. RadiationTherapy May 2015 #10

you're right. they didn't need to show up notadmblnd May 2015 #12

She was interviewed by CNN . . . here's a link to the full interview ---> Petrushka May 2015 #35

Gellar makes a lot of circular arguments. lovemydog May 2015 #52

It would be difficult to fully detail my thoughts on that JonLP24 May 2015 #5

"Fighting words" is a rarely used legal doctrine... MellowDem May 2015 #7

I don't know where you get your information ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #21

When is the last time "fighting words" was SUCCESSFULLY used in a case? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #27

2003, the case of VIRGINIA v. BLACK et al. ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #40

That case didn't use the Fighting Words doctrine... MellowDem May 2015 #45

Okay n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #46

So, then, you were wrong. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #55

Yes ... Virginia v Black, et al., is an incitement case ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #72

"there is much space between constitutional protection and criminality"- no, not really. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #91

It's relevant what I think... MellowDem May 2015 #41

Actually standing on the corner screaming slurs might get you arrested forpublic disorder and harass Scootaloo May 2015 #37

I keep seeing this phrase from some folks NutmegYankee May 2015 #69

How do you think the police & courts would treat this example: lovemydog May 2015 #51

How about this example. 10,000 fundamentalist Christians rally against gay marriage. Gay couple gets Warren DeMontague May 2015 #60

That would be the incitement to imminent lawless action rule from SCOTUS. NutmegYankee May 2015 #70

Only if they kick the shit out of the guy who said it... Oktober May 2015 #71

Fighting words doctrine doesn't apply... MellowDem May 2015 #86

Yeah, I hear you. Thanks. lovemydog May 2015 #88

It was led at a school auditorium... MellowDem May 2015 #89

I would argue that. I would certainly argue that standing on a street corner RadiationTherapy May 2015 #9

Yip somebody here called GELLER a victim and the object of "victim blaming" n/t UTUSN May 2015 #11

And I'll still say it. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #22

"Fire!1" "crowded theater!1" "fighting words!1" (Here's one that never works: Goodbye!1) n/t UTUSN May 2015 #23

It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater if there's actually a fire and you sorely misstate Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #24

Let's try this: I don't care about you. I don't want to hear from you. I am happy without you. n/t UTUSN May 2015 #28

You're also posting in a public forum. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #33

Of course n/t kcr May 2015 #39

I would suggest that you think about this: much of mainstream religion sounds like fighting words to Bluenorthwest May 2015 #14

While I largely agree ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #20

So what the fuck does any of that mean, man? It means you defend hate speech if it is against me. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #30

Breathe my friend ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #42

So condescending. You minimized hate speech against LGBT while calling for laws against Bluenorthwest May 2015 #73

Did you read whatI wrote? ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #74

It means that speech is only protected if it doesn't make certain people real mad. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #61

Similar to a "Fuck the Police" T-shirt seveneyes May 2015 #15

Which is without question protected by the First Amendment. Unvanguard May 2015 #82

You're wrong. philosslayer May 2015 #16

I'm "wrong" or do we have a difference of opinion? ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #18

No, you're wrong. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #32

Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #44

It doesn't win the day with me. Many times the most strenuously argued things lovemydog May 2015 #50

You tell me the last time anyone was successfully prosecuted in the US for "blasphemy". Warren DeMontague May 2015 #59

Yeah, I take the 1st Amendment pretty fucking seriously. I've certainly never claimed otherwise. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #57

I'm afraid I stumbled into the Mixed Metaphor Discussion. lovemydog May 2015 #54

In the words of Billy Bob Thornton Warren DeMontague May 2015 #56

I don't think you know what 'fighting words' means... Oktober May 2015 #17

Okay. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #19

Of course we view everything through our context, the US is a western English-speaking country LittleBlue May 2015 #25

Actually the so-called "fighting words" exception has been repeatedly narrowed by the court Warren DeMontague May 2015 #26

Yay, another pro censorship thread on DU. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #29

"another pro censorship thread on DU." neatly sums it up Yorktown May 2015 #36

To call her an asshat is an insult to both asses and hats. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #58

Agreed++. But please stay civil with hats and asses. Yorktown May 2015 #65

it's like that song from "Annie", about how you're never fully dressed, without a hat. On your Ass. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #66

R.A.V. vs City of St Paul MN Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #31

The argument reported in the OP is a fallacy Yorktown May 2015 #34

That is a very dangerous position to take. Adrahil May 2015 #38

I fart in the general direction of your Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage! cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #43

Death to YOU Yorktown May 2015 #67

You may call me Al... cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #80

I think it's an interesting debate. lovemydog May 2015 #47

You seem to have confused "wrong" and "offensive" with "not constitutionally protected". Warren DeMontague May 2015 #62

Why would you look "outside of the American context" melman May 2015 #48

Since you are making a legal argument nadinbrzezinski May 2015 #49

Geller is filth mwrguy May 2015 #53

Yes she is. That has nothing to do with her right to express a political opinion. n/t Adrahil May 2015 #77

It is much more palatable to defend that organizations freedom of speech as it is Puzzledtraveller May 2015 #63

If she held her exhibit outside a mosque, sure, fighting words. CBGLuthier May 2015 #64

Geller doesn't have the courage of her convictions JustAnotherGen May 2015 #68

So were you under the impression that Westboro Baptist's hundreds of attacks on LGBT events Bluenorthwest May 2015 #75

I would argue that, while lawful ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #83

Geller was trying to get some dummies to become martyrs for her insane cause. JoePhilly May 2015 #76

Free speech in America is only free for the privileged white people malaise May 2015 #78

Someone has arrested/charged Mrs. Obama for her speech? philosslayer May 2015 #79

That's not how the fighting words doctrine works. Unvanguard May 2015 #81

Ummm ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #84

That example is probably fighting words. What Geller does isn't. n/t Unvanguard May 2015 #87

My comments on the free and unfettered ability for women to get abortions at will.... NCTraveler May 2015 #85

GMTA! I said a very similar thing on another thread! Coventina May 2015 #90