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

dpibel

(3,801 posts)
16. I think it's a bit more nuanced
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 09:23 PM
Wednesday

Last edited Wed Jan 14, 2026, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I entirely agree with you that application of any of these exceptions is pretty subjective and subject to surprising results.

That said, I'm not clear on how incitement would apply at all, and it appears that the fighting words exception would very likely not apply to ICE, given the application of the principle.

From your linked source, here's the general definition of incitement:

Incitement — speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — is unprotected by the First Amendment.


That can clearly cover a multitude of sins--I suppose, read literally, it would be perfectly legitimate to pass a law prohibiting people from saying, "There's no traffic coming. We can cross against the light."

But I'm not seeing how this really applies to the ICE/citizen encounters we've seen.

Clearly, fighting words is the more likely argument ICE would make. But that exception, as defined (I'm relying on the source you've linked--I certainly haven't researched these points myself) doesn't seem to apply to what ICE is feeling sad (or murderous) about.

Especially given that, according to this related article on the website you cite, you can be pretty nasty to law enforcement and they're supposed to be able to take it.

Here's what they say:

The very next year, in Gooding v. Wilson (1972), the Court cited Cohen and stated that speech that is “vulgar or offensive . . . is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Then, the very next term, the Court reaffirmed this stance in Hess v. Indiana (1973) by finding that the pronouncement “we’ll take the fucking street later” did not constitute fighting words.

In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.


The bolded part in the first quoted paragraph pretty clearly means that the kind of cursing at ICE officers we've seen on videos is constitutionally protected. It doesn't fall within the fighting words exception.

And if the language in the second quoted paragraph is not prohibited when aimed at a law enforcement officer, it is, as fire.org says, hard to think of speech that would qualify.

As a fun bonus, it appears that the standard is different for law enforcement than for citizens at large. From the same link above:

The Court also reversed a fighting words-type conviction in Lewis v. New Orleans (1974), ruling that the New Orleans ordinance that prohibited the use of “obscene or opprobrious language” toward police officers was too broad. In a concurring opinion, Justice Lewis Powell reasoned that police officers, because of their enhanced training, are expected to exercise greater restraint than the average person.
(Emphasis added.)

Finally, it's a question whether we're talking about criminal or civil liability. If the harm (as in, for instance, defamation) is purely compensable, it seems that an ICE officer faced with nasty words might have a case for damages. But I'm not at all sure it would constitute an arrestable, let alone capital, offense.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Immigration authorities a...»Reply #16