frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





should we bring back the fighting words doctrine

Debate Information

At one time incitement was easier to prove in speech and public order was easier to keep

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

he fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[3] It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Chaplinsky decision[edit]

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Post-Chaplinsky[edit]The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[4] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said " the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972)[5][6]:548+and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)[7][6]:557,567—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protesters' speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    Nope... "I'm offended" is not a valid argument... "fighting words" is an empty definition, it's completely subjective... 
    ApplesauceOppolzerIANVS
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -   edited April 2019
    Pretty much all words we say are, in some way, fighting. Even something as basic as saying "Hi" to a random stranger can be interpreted as our strife for acceptance and recognition. One would never say something that does not contribute to the individual's personal struggle, fight against their inner demons.

    I was born in Soviet Union. While it collapsed before I learned speaking, a lot of its ideological elements never went away. In Belarus, saying that Lukashenko is a terrible president can get one jailed for "expressing lack of respect towards the authority". Is this a good approach to emulate? I do not think so.

    It is one thing to be ostracised for behaving in a very confrontational manner in the society. It is another to persecute such a behavior legally. The former is a standard mode of operation in any society. The latter is a totalitarianism.
    Zombieguy1987OppolzerApplesauce
  • IANVSIANVS 23 Pts   -  
    It’s a slippery slope controlling speech. Where do you draw that line? It can be abused too. Unless someone is stalking you or terrorizing you with threats and constantly verbally assaulting you it’s probably not serious enough to involve the law. I’d say it’s best to keep being offended to yourself since it’s a personal problem and no one else should have to hear about it
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    @IANVS Tell that to the victims of the synogie shootings, limiting speech is needed to fight terrorism
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Synogue shootings show that words are dangerous and need to be controlled
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch