Fighting Words
Fighting words refer to a category of speech that is capable of inciting immediate violence or causing injury through its utterance. Established in the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, this legal concept asserts that some forms of expression are not protected under the First Amendment due to their potential to disrupt public peace. Over the years, the Supreme Court has refined the definition of fighting words, now requiring that such speech must be directly aimed at an individual and likely to provoke a violent response. While the doctrine has not been actively enforced in recent rulings, it remains a point of discussion regarding the regulation of hate speech, including racial and sexist insults. The Court has also emphasized that the government cannot selectively censor specific fighting words based on their content. As society evolves, the relevance and application of the fighting words doctrine are increasingly scrutinized, leading to questions about its future in legal contexts. Overall, fighting words represent a complex intersection of free speech, public order, and the boundaries of acceptable language in a diverse society.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Fighting Words
- DEFINITION: Language that may cause injury or incite immediate violence
- SIGNIFICANCE: The US Supreme Court has ruled that fighting words are not protected as free speech
The US Supreme Court once ruled that certain kinds of speech receive no protection under the First Amendment. Among these kinds of speech were fighting words, which, as the Court describes them in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
Since then, the Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment affords at least some protection to categories of speech formerly viewed as altogether unprotected. Although the Court has not explicitly repudiated the fighting words doctrine, it has not upheld a punishment of speech as fighting words since its decision in the Chaplinsky case. Consequently, many observers have questioned whether the doctrine is still valid. Nevertheless, although the fighting words doctrine may not have been used by the Court to uphold a conviction for a long time, lawmakers and other public officials have sometimes relied on the doctrine to prohibit racial and sexist insults, commonly referred to as hate speech. The Court cast these kinds of speech regulations in doubt, however, by holding in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) that even if fighting words in general may be prohibited, the government cannot single out particular fighting words—such as racial or sexual epitaphs—for censorship.
The Court has narrowed the definition of fighting words over time. In the twenty-first century, it is not enough for fighting words to be deemed offensive; they must be directly aimed at an individual and likely to provoke violence from the person they are directed to. This narrowing definition of fighting words continued to place the fighting words doctrine in legislative limbo. While it has not been explicitly repealed, the doctrine’s practical uses are becoming increasingly obsolete in the twenty-first century.
Bibliography
"Fighting Words." Constitution Annotated, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-5/ALDE‗00013806. Accessed 5 Oct. 2024.
"Fighting Words." Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Nov. 2021, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting‗words. Accessed 5 Oct. 2024.
"What Are Fighting Words? - Free Speech, Rights and Limits." University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-are-fighting-words. Accessed 5 Oct. 2024.