Which case is associated with the concept of the 'fighting words' doctrine?

Which case is associated with the concept of the 'fighting words' doctrine?

• A. True
• B. False
• C. It limited First Amendment protections
• D. It created the exclusionary rule

Answer: (A)

Fighting words are speech that, by their very utterance, inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, so it falls outside First Amendment protection. The case most closely associated with this doctrine is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that certain face-to-face words—designed to provoke a violent reaction—are not protected because they have no redeeming social value and are likely to incite immediate lawlessness. The ruling clarified that this is a narrow exception to free speech, not a general rule barring all insults or provocative language. The other options don’t identify a case or describe the doctrine’s purpose as directly.

Fighting words are speech that, by their very utterance, inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, so it falls outside First Amendment protection. The case most closely associated with this doctrine is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that certain face-to-face words—designed to provoke a violent reaction—are not protected because they have no redeeming social value and are likely to incite immediate lawlessness. The ruling clarified that this is a narrow exception to free speech, not a general rule barring all insults or provocative language. The other options don’t identify a case or describe the doctrine’s purpose as directly.