The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. ... [The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.Fighting Words Law and Legal Definition. ... Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech, exceptions have been made for speech that violates the legal rights of others, or because of compelling governmental interests. Examples of these categories include incitement, true threats, and fighting words.The First Amendment often protects the profane word or phrase — but not always. The First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive, obnoxious and repugnant speech. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote 40 years ago in Cohen v. California, “one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.”

свернуть