Table of Contents
So to Speak podcast: Fighting words
There are very few exceptions to the First Amendment. “Fighting words” is one of them. But since the Supreme Court first outlined this exception in 1942, it hasn’t shown much interest in revisiting the issue.
On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we’re joined by First Amendment scholar and FIRE Legal Fellow David L. Hudson Jr., who argues the “fighting words” doctrine is still alive and well in lower courts and is used to justify punishing everything from toilet tirades to cursing in a canoe.
- Transcript of the podcast
- Fighting words overview
- “The Fighting Words Doctrine: Alive and Well in the Lower Courts” by David Hudson
- “Can anti-profanity laws and the fighting words doctrine be squared with the First Amendment?” by David Hudson
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
- Cohen v. California (1971)
- Gooding v. Wilson (1972)
- Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974)
- City of Houston v. Hill (1987)
- Texas v. Johnson (1989)
You can subscribe and listen to So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher, or download episodes directly from SoundCloud.
Stay up to date with So to Speak on the show’s Facebook and Twitter pages, and subscribe to the show’s newsletter at sotospeakpodcast.com.
Have questions or ideas for future shows? Email us at sotospeak@thefire.org.
Recent Articles
FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.
Supreme Court rejects case over ‘Two genders’ shirt ban, threatening student speech across New England
Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat.
Trump’s executive orders: Due process, ‘breathtaking sweeps,’ and the evils of intentional vagueness — First Amendment News 472
