Also known as: verbal provocations · fighting words · words of provocation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Words that arouse a violent, intense emotion in the defendant. Such words can negate malice and reduce an intentional killing to voluntary manslaughter when they produce heat of passion.
Words that arouse a violent, intense emotion in the defendant. Such words can negate malice and reduce an intentional killing to voluntary manslaughter when they produce heat of passion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Personally abusive epithets addressed face to face to an ordinary citizen that are inherently likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation. Government may punish such speech without violating the First Amendment, but may not enact viewpoint-based regulations within the category.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Personally abusive epithets addressed face to face to an ordinary citizen that are inherently likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation. Government may punish such speech without violating the First Amendment, but may not enact viewpoint-based regulations within the category.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Verbal provocation can be sufficient to arouse heat of passion that negates malice and reduces an intentional killing to voluntary manslaughter. The provocation need not be physical. Any words that produce violent, intense emotion over a period of time may qualify.
Supporting sources
Victor Vargas stepped within inches of Vance Vogel's face inside a crowded phone store and repeatedly shouted crude personal epithets while daring Vogel to strike him. A crowd gathered and recorded the confrontation. Vargas was convicted under a state disorderly conduct statute limited to face-to-face fighting words.
Vito Villarreal shouted racially charged epithets at Veronica Villanueva during a sidewalk dispute. The city charged him under an ordinance that criminalized only fighting words targeting race or religion while treating other equally provocative insults as mere disorderly conduct. Villarreal challenged the selective enforcement on First Amendment grounds.
Virgil Vaughn lit a small cross on a public sidewalk while directing ethnic slurs at employees leaving a nearby office building. Several employees expressed immediate fear of violence. The Court held the speech was not fighting words and reversed the conviction.
Victoria Vernon led demonstrators who stood across from a courthouse and shouted personally abusive epithets at opposing protesters. Police arrested her under a breach-of-peace statute after noting rising tension in the crowd. The Court held the words were protected political speech rather than fighting words.
Victor Vargas stood outside a school and repeatedly yelled personally insulting epithets at passing teachers. The city charged him under an ordinance prohibiting any conduct that might disturb school activities. The Court held the ordinance unconstitutionally vague because it failed to specify which words qualified as fighting words.
Vance Vogel confronted a passerby on a public sidewalk and shouted personally abusive epithets. Police arrested him under a city ordinance making it unlawful for three or more persons to assemble and engage in conduct annoying to passersby. The Court held the ordinance unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to his speech.
Fighting words must be personally abusive epithets delivered face to face to an individual and inherently likely to provoke an average person to immediate violence. General political slogans or insults not directed at a particular person remain protected even if offensive.
Supporting sources
No. Even within the unprotected 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 unregulated.
Supporting sources
No. The test is objective and forward-looking. The words must be of 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
…Opinion of Justice Scalia In construing the St. Paul ordinance, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that it “prohibits only fighting words that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’” 464 N.W.2d, at 510–511. The court also concluded that the ordinance was not impermissibly…