2.3 Sedition, incitement, and fighting words

The First Amendment protects free speech, but not all speech is protected. Sedition, incitement, and fighting words fall outside its scope due to their potential to cause harm or violence. Courts must balance individual rights with public safety when evaluating speech restrictions.

Over time, legal tests for restricting speech have evolved. The "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) replaced earlier, more restrictive standards. This test sets a high bar for government restrictions, requiring a clear link between speech and potential imminent lawless action.

Sedition, Incitement, and Fighting Words

Defining Key Concepts

Top images from around the web for Defining Key Concepts

• 

  File:Newseum 5 Freedoms 1st Amendment.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Primary Source Reading: The Alien and Sedition Acts | US History I (OpenStax) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Newseum 5 Freedoms 1st Amendment.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Primary Source Reading: The Alien and Sedition Acts | US History I (OpenStax) View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Defining Key Concepts

• 

  File:Newseum 5 Freedoms 1st Amendment.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Primary Source Reading: The Alien and Sedition Acts | US History I (OpenStax) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Newseum 5 Freedoms 1st Amendment.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Primary Source Reading: The Alien and Sedition Acts | US History I (OpenStax) View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Sedition refers to speech that advocates for the overthrow of the government through force or violence
  • Seditious speech is not protected by the First Amendment
• Incitement is speech that is intended and likely to provoke imminent lawless action
  • The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence (assault, battery) or illegal activities (theft, vandalism)
• Fighting words are face-to-face personal insults that are likely to provoke a violent reaction from the average person
  • Fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment
  • Examples of fighting words include racial slurs, derogatory terms, or extremely offensive insults directed at an individual
• The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, but there are certain categories of speech, such as sedition, incitement, and fighting words, that are not protected due to their potential to cause harm or violence

Scope of First Amendment Protections

• The First Amendment provides broad protections for freedom of speech and expression
• However, these protections are not absolute, and certain types of speech may be restricted or prohibited
• Sedition, incitement, and fighting words are examples of speech that fall outside the scope of First Amendment protection due to their potential to cause harm, violence, or public disorder
• Courts must balance the individual's right to free speech with the government's interest in maintaining public safety and order when evaluating the constitutionality of speech restrictions

Historical Development of Sedition Law

Early Attempts to Restrict Speech

• The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized criticism of the government, but it expired in 1801 and was never ruled on by the Supreme Court
  • This early attempt to restrict speech highlighted the tension between free speech and government control
  • The act was controversial and faced opposition from those who believed it violated the First Amendment

Evolution of Legal Tests

• In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court introduced the "clear and present danger" test, which allowed the government to restrict speech that posed a clear and present danger to society
  • This test was used to uphold convictions for seditious speech during World War I, such as distributing leaflets opposing the draft
• In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established the "imminent lawless action" test, which replaced the "clear and present danger" test
  • This new test required the government to prove that the speech was intended and likely to provoke imminent lawless action
  • The Brandenburg test provided greater protection for speech by setting a higher standard for government restrictions

Recognition of Fighting Words Doctrine

• In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court recognized the concept of "fighting words" as a category of unprotected speech
  • The Court defined fighting words as face-to-face personal insults that are likely to provoke a violent reaction from the average person
  • This decision established that certain types of speech, even if not directly inciting violence, could be restricted due to their potential to cause public disorder

Tests for Sedition, Incitement, and Fighting Words

Imminent Lawless Action Test

• The "imminent lawless action" test, established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), requires the government to prove three elements to restrict speech as incitement:
  1. The speech must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action
  2. The speech must be likely to incite or produce such action
  3. There must be a close temporal connection between the speech and the likelihood of lawless action
• This test sets a high bar for government restrictions on speech, requiring a clear and direct link between the speech and the potential for imminent lawless action

Fighting Words Doctrine

• The "fighting words" doctrine, established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), requires the government to prove that the speech:
  1. Constitutes a face-to-face personal insult
  2. Is likely to provoke a violent reaction from the average person
  3. Has no social value or contributes nothing to the marketplace of ideas
• Fighting words are considered a narrow category of unprotected speech, and the doctrine has been applied sparingly by courts

Balancing Free Speech and Public Safety

• Courts must balance the individual's right to free speech with the government's interest in maintaining public safety and order when applying these tests
• Judges must consider factors such as the context of the speech, the likelihood of violence or lawless action, and the potential for the speech to contribute to public discourse
• The application of these tests requires careful analysis and can be subject to interpretation, leading to ongoing debates about the boundaries of protected speech

Free Speech vs Public Order

Protecting Fundamental Rights

• The First Amendment's protection of free speech is a fundamental right in the United States, essential for maintaining a democratic society
• Restricting speech, even in the name of public safety, can have a chilling effect on free expression and lead to government overreach
• Critics argue that overly broad restrictions on speech can stifle public discourse, limit the exchange of ideas, and infringe upon individual liberties

Preventing Harm and Violence

• The government has a legitimate interest in preventing violence and maintaining public order
• Certain types of speech, such as incitement to violence or fighting words, do not contribute to the marketplace of ideas and can cause tangible harm to individuals and society
• Supporters of restrictions on sedition, incitement, and fighting words argue that these categories of speech fall outside the scope of First Amendment protection due to their potential to cause harm

Ongoing Debate and Refinement

• The tension between free speech and public safety remains an ongoing debate, with courts continually refining the tests and doctrines used to evaluate the constitutionality of speech restrictions
• As society evolves and new forms of communication emerge, the legal landscape surrounding sedition, incitement, and fighting words may adapt to address new challenges
• Striking the appropriate balance between protecting free speech and maintaining public order requires careful consideration and the application of established legal principles to specific cases and contexts