Does the First Amendment Protect the Speaker of an Anti-War Demonstration? Events are known for drawing crowds that are full of a variety of people for a variety of reasons.  For instance, from the exam we were posed with a topic of an anti-war demonstration being held in Springfield’s Park Central Square, this demonstration attracted many people who are anti-war as well as individuals passing by who had no idea what the demonstration was about until arrival.  Some of these individuals may or may not have the same views as those leading and participating in the anti-war demonstration.

When an event such as an anti-war demonstration is being carried out, it will draw large crowds encompassing people from all lifestyles.  It is even possible to have members of the Armed Forces there by chance or curiosity.    In the case of the exam, a United States Sergeant happened to be passing by the event and the large crowd caught his attention so he went over to see what it was about.  Mind you, this person was in his work attire, which labeled him right away as Armed Forces.   A fight broke out between the Sergeant and some others in the crowd due to the Speaker’s words.  He was questioning the Sergeant and antagonizing the situation by continuing to ask questions while the Sergeant tried to peacefully leave the demonstration.  Officers show up to the demonstration because of the violence that has broken out among some members of the crowd and the Sergeant because of the words that the speaker used.

Now, most would say that they can say whatever they want that they are protected by the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”The defining question here is how many people know that there are limitations of the first amendment and fighting words fall under that limitation of the First Amendment.  It was decided in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire when we first see the fighting words doctrine established.  The fighting words doctrine states… “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace…”The high courts have given states permission to restrict fighting words their words can lead to violence, riots, and un-peaceful protest.

All of the information thus far talks about face to face interactions and true verbal assaults but what has been defined as a true verbal assault?  Have these doctrines changed to adapt to the technology age where there are words or utterances all over social media and other social networking sites, emails, and other communications channels or has this doctrine adapted to the need of words in sighting violence over the internet and across boundaries of the city, county, state, and country lines?  Does words with one person, leading the suicide of an individual count as fighting words?  How does that play out especially as we have seen an increase in bullying and cyberbullying where people are being teased and harassed for their gender, religion, and sexual orientation?

In the exam, it seems based on the information from the fighting words doctrine trial that the speaker at the demonstration would have lost in a court hearing because his utterances were meant to cause conflict and incite violence in the crowd toward the sergeant.  He continually questioned him as he was trying to leave and doing it in a manner that was provoking the crowd, which would lead violence as the sergeant tried to leave.

References:

• Law Cornell
• Pember, Don R., (2015)  Mass Media Law. McGraw Hill Education. 124.