Talk:Fighting words

This article contains really good information about freedom of speech that I did not know before (the 1942 ruling). I think this article could somehow be promoted through Wikipedia's first page. Todd 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The definition of fighting words at the top of the article seems to confuse "true threats" which is a threat designed to place the recipient of the speech in fear of bodily harm (generally proscribable) and "fighting words" which are personal epithets that tend to cause the person who hears them to immediately physically retaliate. The difference might seem slight, but it's real. Fighting words statutes are almost impossible to draft without them being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad anyway. At this point it's almost this mythical zone of unprotected speech that may or may not actually exist. This page needs to be cleaned up. 158.104.174.136 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The way the top page reads: "fighting words...when uttered create..." almost as if they were "magic words". It should read: "can create" or: "tend to create". Someone controls their own reaction to a word; the word does not "create" a reaction. However, I agree some are in poor taste and a person cannot be blamed by reacting badly to them--still, it is Their Choice how to react.68.231.184.217 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

SFAICS, the preceding objection has been adequately dealt w/ in the current version of the page. Anybody disagree. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does the concept of "fighting words" have any legal significance outside of the U.S.A.? In Canada or the U.K., for example? --Ds13 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added some referenced content of relevance for Canada. --Ds13 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where is this from?

In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words" and that the threat of actual violence must be present.

I cannot find that text in the opinion of the court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0394_0576_ZO.html

It doesn't need any other reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.77.206 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's content. If so we should remove it. MikeWren 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

[www.cafepress.com/your_team_sucks?pid=5983694 Your Team Sucks.] - Sports Fighting Words T-Shirts and Apparel

Yeah, it's just opportunistic barely-relevant advertising. Removed! 121.44.72.217 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would the Criminal Code reference for provocation, when dealing with assaults and the like, be relevant here? To my non-lawyer ears, the concept of someone being able to use a verbal attack as an excuse for an assault is a de facto limitation of their freedom of speech... Quadra 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC) I don't know about Canada but in the United States "fighting words" are not protected speech.--Drewder (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fighting words and hate speech should probably remain separate articles. I am not a lawyer, but I'll take a try at this anyway:

• "Hate speech" almost always refers to speech that expresses bigotry, such as racism or sexism; it doesn't necessarily demand an imminent response. (However, "call to action" is one of the major qualifications in the United States for whether speech is an unprotected solicitation to commit a crime. Other countries have much different qualifications; in some countries, merely being derogatory towards a class of people is enough to be unlawful.)
• "Fighting words", by contrast, indicates that the form of the communication is likely to cause a breach of the peace; it is often some form of insult, but it need not contain what is usually considered "hate speech": most examples of "fighting words" involve interaction between two people who are of the same race and sex, for example.

That being said: There are some jurisdictions where the criteria for prohibited hate speech (that is, bigoted communication) is worded very similarly to what is traditionally considered "fighting words"; however, it becomes clear from the context of those laws (for example, in Canada) that their main purpose is not actually to address "fighting words" in general, but to prevent bigotry (hate speech) to the furthest extent possible, by copying a legal formula that has already been legally tested ("fighting words") in relation to local freedom-of-speech rights. They are still separate legal concepts; and in the United States, for example, my understanding is that "hate speech" tends to be made unlawful through the concepts of criminal solicitation to commit a crime against a third party ("call to action") or an intention to intimidate someone in a way that would already be unlawful in some other way, and not to the "fighting words" criteria. --Closeapple (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Fighting Words is a mammal and Hate Speech is a bat. Get what I'm saying? Hate Speech can be fighting words but Fighting Words but aren't neccessarily always Hate Speech. You probably already get this, but I'm trying to say that they are linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.122.10.94 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do get what you're saying but the analogy doesn't quite work - hate speech isn't a subset of fighting words, rather they're similar sets with some overlapping area. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• • My understanding is that - in most cases - fighting words are a subset of hate speech, at least in practice, and that "fighting words" are often the basis for what tha law calls Inciting. Often such words are directed against police, as fascists and oppressors, or the fortunately now-rare lynching by a mob - where people are stired up by race-based hate speach. SPeech that is normally regarded as bigoted can ideed be engaged in without inciting criminal activity. My favorite example is Herbert W Armstrong and some of his followers (who still exist surprisingly) that still beleive in Anglo Israelism - that those of ANglo descent are the true jews - and those that most people call jews are't true jews. There are a few other similar religious beleifs - often called Christian Identity..most seem to be a bit kooky - but only a small number are actually dangerous...

99.66.207.134 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this case was missinterpreted in the media....... but Virginia v. Black was reported as upholding the Virginia ban on cross burning if i remember right.... Now the entry here says the law was partially struck down, but upheld that cross burning could be a crime if intimidation was clearly part of the intent..(which jives with my thoughts on the issue, that cross burning at a Klan rally is one thing - offensive but protected , but a cross burning on Jesse Jackson's front lawn at 3am is something clearly different - a clear case for the application of such laws on such things as laws on Assault, terroristic threatening, or something similar)

so Could someone with a legal background comment here at least, maybe cite the court ruling, just to help clarify

99.66.207.134 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Isn't there some Newer supreme court decision than 1942? This is quite old...a lot of racist laws were in place. To try to enforce this now seems like an 1894 Liquor law. I know nowadays you can say whatever you Want to a cop so long as it isn't threatening. "You are a g.d. fascist" Isn't threatening; it is an opinion, and hence protected under 1st amendment.

However, an on-duty cop cannot legally slander/libel; i.e, accuse an epileptic of "drunk driving" while on-duty, etc.68.231.184.217 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:MOS strongly encourages gender-neutral language, so it provides no mandate for a change to generic masculine. It doesn’t provide a mandate for generic feminine, either. An approach used by some authors is to alternate between masculine and feminine, and if it’s done reasonably (i.e., the references are consistent within a given context), it’s a perfectly acceptable solution that’s arguably as good as any of the other imperfect solutions that English offers. Of course, it’s difficult to alternate when there’s only one instance; a common approach is to use the alternation at each instance (e.g., “his or her”), but this quickly becomes unwieldy if there are many instances. I don’t see a problem with a single reference to feminine, so I′ve restored the previous version, deferring to the initial style, which I think MOS:STABILITY requires. If we add other content that includes personal pronouns, we’ll need to maintain balance, alternating either in every instance or by context. JeffConrad (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does an initial summary NEED a citation, if it in fact accurately and adequately summarizes the body of the article? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If the underlying statements are provided and adequately cited within the article body, normally there is no specific need to use the same cites again for the summary ("lede") section. Verbatim quotes and statements in the Wikipedia editorial voice which would cause the "ordinary" editor to question their veracity should be specifically cited though. One of those common-sense things - if it might raise eyebrows, cite it in-line. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The term used by Jehovah's Witnesses to refer to a single member of the religion is "one of Jehovah's Witnesses", or "a Witness" after recent mention of the religion's name. The usage "a Jehovah's Witness" sounds awkward because it sort of implies that "a Jehovah" is a thing. Grammatically, compare "one of Damian's friends" vs. "a Damian's friend". I added the OOJW phrasing in this edit but got reverted. What policy or guideline governs? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see this is an old thread, but in case the matter is raised again... Wikipedia does not need to use terms 'used by Jehovah's Witnesses'. Jehovah's Witnesses is both the name of a religious denomination (singular) and a reference to members of that denomination (plural). A member of the religion can be referred to as "a Jehovah's Witness", it is not improper grammar, it is in common usage, and the Watch Tower Society occasionally employs this usage. The example given is flawed, because "Damian's friend" is not a compound noun nor a proper noun. If there were an organisation called "Damian's Friends" and if people of that organisation were also referred to as "Damian's Friends", then (and only then) would the example be directly analogous, and then it would indeed be proper to refer to "a Damian's Friend", and it would not imply a reference in isolation to "a Damian". Fisherman's Friend is an example of a compound proper noun comprising a possessive that could be referenced with an indefinite article in this way. There may be POV implications in the usage of "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" in some contexts, as that grammatical structure (a possessive in reference to an individual followed by a separate noun) refers to a witness of Jehovah (a theological claim), rather than the compound proper noun Jehovah's Witness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know of any cases related specifically to online speech or printed speech? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The introduction fails to show what are fighting words in a straight-forward way. "Fighting words intended to incite blah blah blah" is confusing. Is this phrase used in particular context and inapplicable to English speaker outside Europe, America and Australia?

For example, Taiwan outlaws public insults (although punishment is usually small amount of fine). Are public insults "fighting words"? --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Case in point: the summary I put on my edit of about 12 hours ago. --Thnidu (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Fighting words#Australia, "Kirby J" is evidently a misreading of "Kirby j." in official references, where the "j" stands for his title of Judge. I removed the "J". See diff. --Thnidu (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

From what I understand, the Supreme Court of the Unites States only ruled that states can have laws against breaching the peace by using fighting words. It did not rule that fighting words are illegal, they're just not protected. Based on the facts of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, it seems clear that a lot of the protests we see on college campuses where protesters are calling individuals "fascists" or "Nazis" or even just shouting someone down constitute fighting words yet no one seems to be prosecuted for it. Is this the result of states having different laws? If so, could a section be added under United States be added summarizing the laws of each state? 68.47.33.24 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

like the definition says that it's about inciting hate or violence *from* a target, yet the Canada reference says that it's about inciting hatred against a target, not quite sure what it is about.
My1 02:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply