I know, which is why I'm trying to be clear that how dangerous this is is a matter of debate. Just because speech is political does NOT mean it is protected (see Dennis v. United States).
Re:Why We Terminated Daily Stormer
by FuriouslyAdrift on Thursday August 17, 2017 @02:27PM
(#15039440)
To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed.
'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not.
'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.
'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption.
I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not.
This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.