Is the Bacile movie entitled to Constitutional protection? Should it be?

[onenote]

There has been a lot of discussion in various threads over the responsibility/culpability of Bacile for releasing a film that was all but certain to provoke a violent reaction among certain people. Many of the threads assume without discussion that the film is constitutionally protected speech, while others suggest that it isn't because of its inflammatory nature.

While it may have been brought up and I missed it, I haven't noticed a serious discussion of the concept of "fighting words": the Constitutional doctrine that some speech is so inflammatory that it is no entitled to full first amendment protection. In its earliest incarnation, the fighting words doctrine was very broad: the first case in which it was recognized upheld the arrest of someone who called a town marshall a "God damned racketeer" and a "fascist." Since that time, the doctrine has been substantially narrowed.

My question is whether there still should be a fighting words doctrine and if so how it should be defined so that there is a clear line between what is and is not within the doctrine. My personal view is that the doctrine has basically outlived its purpose and should be discarded. But I'd be interested in others' views.

[el_bryanto]

1. And then Mice voted to bell the Cat - key question - who decides what constitutes fighting words?

I think our nation has a history of surpressing certain types of speech that is pretty shameful, I don't think we need have another go at it.

Bryant