>Fighting words have been used not only by American presidents but by many other citizens, and they are a traditional aspect of our communicated freedom. Further-more, the concept is so vague that no lawyer can adequately guide his client contemplating a public speech. Additionally, the assumption that the use of ‘fighting words’ generally leads to breaches of the peace must be seriously questioned. Even if fisticuffs fol-low at times, the interests of society can better be served by chastising the violent and not the verbal.

 

If we allow police to arrest speakers because of the content of their speeches then the First Amendment is meaningless. “Fighting words” to one person are dinner table conversation to another. Because of this it is impossible to define them; the average person has no ide...

Please subscribe to keep reading.