Timeline for Freedom of speech and the N-word
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2019 at 14:14 | comment | added | NL7 | As a practical matter, the Supreme Court seems to always distinguish Chaplinsky but never actually overturn it. If protesters at veteran funerals saying "God loves dead vets" is not fighting words, then what does "fighting words" even mean? I think it's important to remember that Chaplinsky was decided in wartime (WWII), when a persecuted religious minority called a sheriff a "damned fascist" and "God-damned racketeer." Legal scholars usually hate the realist style of interpretation, but I think the wartime context and lack of sympathy for the litigant affected the decision. | |
| Jul 4, 2019 at 2:01 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @user1873 You cannot cite Chaplinsky anymore as its holding was significantly narrowed and modified by Terminiello v. City of Chicago which held that you cannot even apply the "fighting words" test without first making findings that you cannot make in the type of case we're talking about here. "The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand." | |
| May 22, 2019 at 4:48 | comment | added | Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI | "No, sir. I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir." | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 | comment | added | yannis | @Peteris Thanks, I had a feeling Germany and Austria would have some kind of provisions against Holocaust deniers, but I had no idea about France, Belgium, etc. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 9:39 | comment | added | Peteris | @YannisRizos For example, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#France - I seem to recall from media some recent trials according to that law. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 8:22 | comment | added | yannis | "But it is not akin to Holocaust denial in Europe..." Care to clarify that? AFAIK there's no law prohibiting denying the Holocaust in any EU country. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 5:40 | comment | added | user1873 | perhaps the issue was calling a "public servant" a fascist, though the point remains that the face-to-face insult was the only way to consider it fighting words (if you instead were not directing spit at someone, and instead said, "all black people are <blah>" you should be covered by the 1st amendment. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 5:38 | comment | added | user1873 | @Avi, I don't know what case you speak if in the 80s, but this case in the 40s supports my position., "Sixty years ago, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court upheld for the first and only time a conviction for fighting words and made that doctrine a rare exception to the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Walter Chaplinsky, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, called a city marshal a 'damned Fascist'" ... | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 5:02 | vote | accept | Danil Gholtsman | ||
| Apr 2, 2014 at 3:31 | comment | added | NL7 | @user1873, It's not presumptively inciting to insult people to their face. Insults are part of free speech. But walking up to a random stranger and throwing a racial slur might cause a fight, and the first amendment may not protect that. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 2:00 | comment | added | Publius | @user1873 I think that's heavily dependent on the context. In the 90s, the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech does not itself constitute fighting words. | |
| Apr 2, 2014 at 0:45 | comment | added | user1873 | You might want to specify that the n-word directed at an individual would be considered "fighting words," and wouldn't be covered by free speech. If you just say the word, but don't direct it at someone you are probably ok. | |
| Apr 1, 2014 at 21:13 | history | answered | NL7 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |