You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago 

Both ruling have been severely limited since they were made, and the opinion you quoted is also heavily criticized for not accurately representing the precedent as lewd, obscene, profane, and insult speech is still very much protected.

"Fighting words" at this point are almost entirely limited to credible and imminent direct threats and words accompanying aggressive posturing, sometimes not even that.

This makes sense as the original ruling was one of the most massive fuck ups in the history of the supreme court and could, by its own wording, be applied to any speech deemed by any party to be offensive.

Words that cause an action may not be protected in very limited cases, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio modified the previous precedent to only apply to speech that would cause imminent lawless action.

"Fire" in a crowded theater is currently protected speech.