To: jttmab who wrote (140480 ) 7/15/2004 6:05:54 PM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to Yes, even my penchant for deference has its limits, and I dissent on occasion.One of the unprotected categories of speech consists of so called "fighting words," that is, words which are likely to make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words receive no First Amendment protection, because, like other unprotected categories (i.e. defamation, obscenity, etc.) They are not normally part of any dialogue or exposition of ideas. But, the Supreme Court today keeps this exclusion within narrow limits. bsos.umd.edu Fifteen years later, in Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 373 N.E. 2d 21 (Ill. 1978), "an especially strong state case disallowed a ‘fighting words' rational even in circumstances of extreme provocation and targeted insult, despite Chaplinsky" (Van Alstyne 757). In this case, a Nazi group planned to demonstrate in front of Skokie Village Hall. Skokie is a predominantly Jewish community, and about 5,000 of its residents were survivors of concentration camps. Just before the scheduled demonstration, the village enacted several ordinances designed to neutralize the demonstration, including one forbidding the dissemination of any materials which promote or incite racial or religious hatred. "The Court argued that there was simply no principled way of distinguishing between this situation and speech that stirs listeners to unrest or anger, speech which was explicitly protected in cases like Terminiello" (Emanuel 462). bsos.umd.edu
