Fight words are intentionally used to cause emotional distress or incite violence. Countries like the US and Canada criminalize such language. The intent of the words is important, and context is considered. The right to free speech is upheld as long as it does not provoke violence.
Fight words are words used specifically and intentionally with the intention of causing emotional distress to the listener or inciting violent reactions from one or more listeners. A number of countries that protect free speech, such as the United States (USA) and Canada, do not protect fight words and have passed numerous laws or court rulings criminalizing the use of such language. In certain situations, in the United States the use of fighting words can also be used as a basis upon which to build a case for assault, although the words themselves do not justify the assault and further violent action is required.
Sometimes referred to as hate speech, fighting words are spoken or written with the express intent of inciting violence by the listeners or readers. This may be directed towards a specific person or towards a general group of people defined along racial, religious or other lines. Often used words are not only considered on their own, but also within the context in which they are spoken or written. Some words could be used at a demonstration for social change as evidence of what opposition groups said about those who attended the demonstration and cannot be considered illegal. The same words, when spoken among a group of people who are opposed to change and seemingly on the verge of violence, may be illegal if the intent of the chosen word can be shown to be to incite violence.
This fine line of difference, the need to demonstrate intent, has often led to a particular case involving combat parole being considered by the courts. In the United States, for example, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested after using angry and potentially offensive language towards a law enforcement officer. The arrest was upheld by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that words which “…by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of the peace…” are not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by the protection of free speech.
Since that ruling, other rulings have narrowly defined the meaning of fight words to ensure that those laws and rulings are not used as a means of government censure. Society may generally wish to limit individuals’ use of offensive or degrading language for the sake of fairness. US courts, however, have continuously upheld the right of individuals to say what they want, as long as the words do not cross the line and attempt to provoke violent behavior in listeners. Canada has placed similar restrictions on free speech when such speech is intended to cause violence or a breach of the peace.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
