# Could the "fighting words" exception to the 1st Amendment apply to the Innocence of Muslims video? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388 "2012-09-21T12:33:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/21 "2012-09-25T18:41:11Z")
A slight hijack: Even if there are no criminal penalties that can be raised against the film makers, could a case be made that he could be sued in civil court for damages caused by the rioting? (Assuming of course that it could be proved that the rioting was a direct result of the publication of the video). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/22 "2012-09-25T20:54:50Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > NPR had an interview with a law professor last week, which I will try to summarize from memory. > > Fighting words have to be not only specific, but they have to be local and immediate. You can’t incite to riot at a distance at an unspecified time (there was also some discussion of whether this rule might eventually have to change due to instant communications world-wide, but it hasn’t changed yet). > > So if you are standing in front of a crowd and in your speech you urge them to riot and do property damage, that would (or at least could) be an exception to the first amendment right of free speech. > > But if you posted the exact same speech in a video on YouTube, it would not, because you don’t know who, if anyone, will ever watch it, nor when. > > At least, that’s how I understood it from the interview. > Roddy This is what I came in to say. Unless the words are forced upon someone they cannot be considered fighting words. In the case of the movie, it was never forced upon anyone to watch or hear. It is the mere existence of the content that has caused riots and now we’re getting into the realm of the thought police. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/23 "2012-09-25T23:26:05Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I guess my question is about whether the government can restrict you from using fighting words. If I go up to a person and angrily tell him the specifics of how I’m going to kick his ass, those are clearly “fighting words,” right? Wrong. That would be [assault](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assualt) (assuming the threats were accompanied by an appropriate gesture, such as a raised fist) , which in some jurisdictions would justify the use of reasonable force in self defense. > [@](#): > > What I’m asking is whether the government has laws, or could pass laws, against the saying the words in the first place. If a policeman was standing there as I said that, could I be charged with a crime? Yes, you could be charged with [assault](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assualt) as noted above. Fighting words are not threats of bodily harm so much as insults so grave as to be likely to provoke a violent response. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/24 "2012-09-26T00:19:53Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > A slight hijack: > > Even if there are no criminal penalties that can be raised against the film makers, could a case be made that he could be sued in civil court for damages caused by the rioting? (Assuming of course that it could be proved that the rioting was a direct result of the publication of the video). _Possibly._ However, in addition to much else, you’d have to prove that the filmmakers’ negligence (or possibly, though even less likely, their intentional act) was the _proximate_ and an _actual_ cause of the property damage. In other words, you have to prove that something else wasn’t a more direct cause of the damage, and that the damage would not have occurred but for the distribution of the film. The latter is easy; the former is hard. As a general matter, the criminal act of a third party is considered an intervening cause, meaning it breaks the chain of causation. For example, if I borrow your car and park it in a bad neighborhood, I am (probably) not the proximate cause of the damage if some jackass decides to take a baseball bat to it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/25 "2012-09-26T02:50:54Z")
The big problem here is that if anti-Islam films are fighting words than so are anti-Christian films. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/26 "2012-09-28T13:31:22Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I am also not a lawyer, and I had the same impression as Diceman - the “fighting words” rule means that if I punch a guy who has come at me with “fighting words,” then that is something that I can use to get out of a charge of assault. I was on a jury one time where this was a pertinent factor. > > Is there an exception to the First Amendment having to do with fighting words? One that would let police charge a person for a crime based on what he said? I don’t believe that this is accurate. You would still be guilty of a battery if someone used “fighting words” towards you. You can only respond in self defense if you fear immediate bodily harm, not to defend your honor. The “fighting words” are simply speech that the government may prohibit in the interest of not having fights break out (even though the fights themselves are unjustified). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/27 "2012-09-28T14:02:01Z")
This. From Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942): > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388/28 "2012-09-28T15:06:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The big problem here is that if anti-Islam films are fighting words than so are anti-Christian films. And anti-atheist ones? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-fighting-words-exception-to-the-1st-amendment-apply-to-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/635388.md?page=1)