Also known as: fighting talks · fighting words
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An unprotected category of speech consisting of personally abusive epithets addressed face to face to an ordinary person that by their very utterance are inherently likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation.
Felipe Figueroa stepped within inches of Fiona Foster on a public sidewalk and shouted crude personal slurs about her appearance and intelligence. A crowd gathered as the confrontation escalated. Fiona reacted by raising her fists. Felipe was arrested under a fighting-words statute.
Frederick Ferguson shouted racial epithets at Faye Fuller during a heated sidewalk argument. A city ordinance punished only fighting words that insulted on the basis of race. Frederick was convicted while identical non-racial insults went unpunished. He challenged the selective enforcement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felix Franco stood near Fabian Flynn at a funeral and directed personal insults about Flynn's deceased relative. The remarks were delivered at close range in a tense setting. Flynn felt immediate anger but did not strike back. Franco faced charges under a disorderly-conduct statute.
Fiona Foster approached a city official and hurled face-to-face personal insults about the official's integrity. The official remained calm and did not respond physically. Foster was charged under a statute targeting abusive epithets likely to provoke violence.
Frederick Ferguson advertised services by shouting personal insults at potential customers on a public street. The insults were delivered inches from the listeners' faces. Several listeners appeared ready to respond violently. Ferguson was prosecuted under a local fighting-words law.
Faye Fuller sent repeated messages to Felix Franco containing crude personal epithets and dares to fight. The messages were received as direct, face-to-face style confrontations. Franco felt an immediate urge to respond violently. Fuller was charged under a statute covering fighting words.
Fighting words must be personally abusive epithets delivered face to face to a specific individual and inherently likely to provoke an average person to immediate violence. General political criticism or offensive statements not directed at a particular person remain protected even if they anger listeners.
Supporting sources
No. Even within the fighting-words category, the government may not enact viewpoint-based regulations that criminalize only insults concerning race, religion, or gender while leaving other equally provocative insults untouched. Such selectivity constitutes impermissible content discrimination.
Supporting sources
No. The test is objective and forward-looking. The words must be of such a character that they are inherently likely to provoke an average person to immediate violence. Proof that violence actually occurred is not required.
Supporting sources
Yes. The fighting-words doctrine applies to insults directed at ordinary citizens and is not limited to public officials. Direct face-to-face personal abuse that is likely to provoke immediate violence remains punishable even when the target is a police officer.
Supporting sources
…While our Court has held that some kinds of speech and writings, such as "obscenity," Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, and "fighting words," Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, are not expression within the protection of the First Amendment, freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials is unquestionably, as…