General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Fighting words

<< < (3/3)

Ninering57:
Thanks for the responses! As usual, theres 's more to consider than first meets the eye. I particularly appreciate the legal sources. I'll read through this a bit more carefully and may have more questions later. Looks like the short version is that the defender needs to be able to convince a judge/jury that a PHYSICAL assault was iminent or in progress and escape was not practical.  Sticks and stones... etc.  Thanks again.

SemperFiGuy:
A pleasure.

sfg

cz75shooter:
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it the "fighting words" exception to free speech is very narrow and may not even survive scrutiny. Check out "Trope Seven":

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

More details from the invaluable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

SemperFiGuy:

--- Quote ---cz75shooter
--- End quote ---

Thanks for those postings and the excellent spreadout of free speech issues and the attacks contained therein.

Another creeping insinuation on free speech is the rising use of "terroristic threats" charges against heated speech.  Once upon a time terroristic threats had to do with phone calls about bombs on airliners or in schools, public buildings, crowded malls, whatever.   Real terror.

The situation has now degenerated to the point that T-Threat charges are used in domestic disturbance and ordinary fistfight events.   As felonies.  Prosecutors like the T-Threat statutes because they can charge the felony, then get the victim to plead down to a misdemeanor disturbing-the-peace charge, thereby getting the conviction without a time-consuming trial.

Which is another sound argument for walking away from a confrontation without comment.

FWIW,

sfg

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page