Talk:Fighting words
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Fighting words: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
This article contains really good information about freedom of speech that I did not know before (the 1942 ruling). I think this article could somehow be promoted through Wikipedia's first page. Todd 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The definition of fighting words at the top of the article seems to confuse "true threats" which is a threat designed to place the recipient of the speech in fear of bodily harm (generally proscribable) and "fighting words" which are personal epithets that tend to cause the person who hears them to immediately physically retaliate. The difference might seem slight, but it's real. Fighting words statutes are almost impossible to draft without them being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad anyway. At this point it's almost this mythical zone of unprotected speech that may or may not actually exist. This page needs to be cleaned up. 158.104.174.136 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relevance outside U.S.A.?
Does the concept of "fighting words" have any legal significance outside of the U.S.A.? In Canada or the U.K., for example? --Ds13 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've added some referenced content of relevance for Canada. --Ds13 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is this from?
In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words" and that the threat of actual violence must be present.
I cannot find that text in the opinion of the court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0394_0576_ZO.html
[edit] Is this link an advertisement?
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's content. If so we should remove it. MikeWren 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[www.cafepress.com/your_team_sucks?pid=5983694 Your Team Sucks.] - Sports Fighting Words T-Shirts and Apparel
- Yeah, it's just opportunistic barely-relevant advertising. Removed! 121.44.72.217 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canada reference
Would the Criminal Code reference for provocation, when dealing with assaults and the like, be relevant here? To my non-lawyer ears, the concept of someone being able to use a verbal attack as an excuse for an assault is a de facto limitation of their freedom of speech... Quadra 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
