Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

stopdiggin

(15,073 posts)

3. correct. those are accepted and established exceptions (within robust speech advocacy)

Reply to applegrove (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2026, 07:33 PM

Wednesday

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

The categorical exceptions to the First Amendment are few, narrow, and carefully defined. To protect freedom of expression, they must remain that way. But they do exist, each for good reason.

by category - speech that falls outside of constitutional protections. INCITEMENT, TRUE THREATS, FIGHTING WORDS, OBSCENITY, DEFAMATION, FRAUD and PERJURY, INTEGRAL to CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

How such are interpreted is always the fly in the ointment. A common conundrum, that is ever so hard to get away from - and has forever been that way. But the statement - simply on its face - is not incorrect.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

MichMan RockCreek

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Immigration authorities are being told "incitement" and "fighting words" are not protected by the First Amendment: [View all] applegrove Wednesday OP

There is a civil war in progress. It only took Klarkashton Wednesday #1

Lies lies lies lies. It is protected. Trueblue1968 Wednesday #2

It is not protected - see post #3 Fiendish Thingy Wednesday #7

Really? That black and white? See post 16. NFT dpibel Wednesday #19

correct. those are accepted and established exceptions (within robust speech advocacy) stopdiggin Wednesday #3

Is this read so that the types of speech listed RockCreek Wednesday #5

the link probably does a better job, but ... stopdiggin Wednesday #8

Thank you RockCreek Wednesday #9

So you can jump infront of a car that is moving? applegrove Wednesday #10

have no idea what you're saying - or how it relates to what I said. - - -(nt)- stopdiggin Wednesday #11

I was not implying you are responsible for what the Government applegrove Wednesday #12

the OP header says : "being told .. not protected .. " stopdiggin Wednesday #15

I think it's a bit more nuanced dpibel Wednesday #16

I would agree with every single word there stopdiggin Wednesday #17

Well, THEY are the ones inciting and THEY are the ones bluestarone Wednesday #4

So, when DonPedo said that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave ....he should have been arrested ! Right? Bread and Circuses Wednesday #6

More of the same kwolf68 Wednesday #13

That is why they are investigating Becca, Renee Good's wife. applegrove Wednesday #14

If the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone TommyT139 Wednesday #18

if i get in front of a crowd protesting ICE, with a bullhorn, and yell "you better fight or your not going to have Takket Wednesday #20

Exactly. Incitement if there ever was a case. applegrove Wednesday #21