In the US, one of the famous exceptions to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is so called “fighting words”, and our court system has established that legislatures may regulate such speech, making arrests and prosecutions under such laws not a violation of Free Speech.
Anyway, to what extent do laws prohibiting “fighting words” actually still exist on the books today? Is there any jurisdiction in the US where, even though “fighting words” may not be 100% protected by the First Amendment, they are nonetheless legal because local, state, and/or territorial law does not actually outlaw them? Consider, as an analogy, that the “right” to camp in public parks where such camping is legal is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the legislature can choose to make it 100% legal, 100% illegal, or place conditions on it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights.
§55-7-2. Insulting words.
All words which, from their usual construction and common acceptation, are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace, shall be actionable. No demurrer shall preclude a jury from passing thereon.
It means a judge can’t rule that such and such word is not really an insult. A jury has to make the call.
Interestingly, the law was passed in 1923 as an anti-dueling statute. It was felt that if there was a remedy at law for an insult, a gentleman didn’t need to resort to pistols at dawn.
Wouldn’t *Disturbing the Peace *laws cover fighting words in a lot of circumstances? Because of the exception provided, a defendant couldn’t argue constitutional free speech as a defense in such cases.
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-11-39
(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person´s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words’
You also can’t curse in front of someone under 14 years of age.
I suppose the first amendment issue is tied to the circumstances. If you are face to face with someone and say something obviously designed to provoke a direct reaction in the heat of the moment (“Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled to elderberries…”) that may be a deliberate breach of the peace - so is incitement to riot. If you publish a book of Mohammed cartoons or commentary in a newspaper, and people come looking for you a day or a week later, they had plenty of time to cool off, they are violating your right to free speech.
While the fighting words doctrine is technically still alive, it’s my opinion that any specific instance of restrictions on fighting words coming before a court would be thrown out under the First Amendment.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;…*
Can someone translate that for me, please?