Example of One Point in a Summary Outline:
The Fighting Words Doctrine
The
US Supreme Court permits restrictions on “fighting words” which are words that
incite violence or lawlessness or inflict injury. In Chaplinksy v New
Hampshire, the Court affirmed a criminal conviction for a man saying to a
police officer "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned
Fascist." Since then, the Court has narrowed the concept, making it clear
that
1)
the speech must be directed at an individual Cohen v California
2) that it must be imminent violence or lawlessness Brandenberg v Ohio
3) that words directed at a police officer are unlikely to be fighting words Gooding v Wilson (altering Chaplinsky)
4)
that the statute must not restrict protected speech beyond fighting words Gooding
v Wilson and Lewis v City of New Orleans (also altering Chaplinsky)
5)
“inflict injury” has been all but abandoned as part of fighting words Snyder
v Phelps
