Wikipedia is often a decent source of information on legal and historical subjects, but don't trust anything it says on current religious issues or current politics, and pay close attention to the sources cited, to determine credibility.

Here are the references in the linked article:

• Camp, Julie Van (2005). "First Amendment". Professor of Philosophy. California State University, Long Beach. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Cohen, Henry (16 October 2009). "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment" (PDF). Legislative Attorney. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Johnson, Jay (2001). "Note: The Interaction Between Statutory and Constitutional Arguments in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez". Journal of Law and Politics. 17 (1): 353–372.

• Volokh, Eugene (2008). First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (3rd ed.). Foundation Press (published 12 May 2008). ISBN 978-1-59941-338-9.

Anyway, the definition of "fighting words" is a direct quote from the Supreme Court. However, I don't necessarily agree with all current exceptions to United States free speech protection. I was merely citing existing legal precedent.

In particular, obscenity is a rather controversial legal concept, since it is exceedingly hard to even define. Obscenity laws vary widely between jurisdictions and communities.

Wikipedia is often a decent source of information on legal and historical subjects, but don't trust anything it says on current religious issues or current politics, and pay close attention to the citations.

Here are the works cited in the linked article:

• Camp, Julie Van (2005). "First Amendment". Professor of Philosophy. California State University, Long Beach. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Cohen, Henry (16 October 2009). "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment" (PDF). Legislative Attorney. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Johnson, Jay (2001). "Note: The Interaction Between Statutory and Constitutional Arguments in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez". Journal of Law and Politics. 17 (1): 353–372.

• Volokh, Eugene (2008). First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (3rd ed.). Foundation Press (published 12 May 2008). ISBN 978-1-59941-338-9.

Anyway, the definition of "fighting words" is a direct quote from the Supreme Court. However, I don't necessarily agree with all current exceptions to United States free speech protection. I was merely citing existing legal precedent.

In particular, obscenity is a rather controversial legal concept, since it is exceedingly hard to even define. Obscenity laws vary widely between jurisdictions and communities.

Wikipedia is often a decent source of information on legal and historical subjects, but don't trust anything it says on current religious issues or current politics, and pay close attention to the citations.

Here are the works cited in the linked article:

• Camp, Julie Van (2005). "First Amendment". Professor of Philosophy. California State University, Long Beach. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Cohen, Henry (16 October 2009). "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment" (PDF). Legislative Attorney. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 1 January 2012.

• Johnson, Jay (2001). "Note: The Interaction Between Statutory and Constitutional Arguments in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez". Journal of Law and Politics. 17 (1): 353–372.

• Volokh, Eugene (2008). First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (3rd ed.). Foundation Press (published 12 May 2008). ISBN 978-1-59941-338-9.

Anyway, the description of fighting words is a direct quote from the Supreme Court. However, I don't necessarily agree with all current exceptions to United States free speech protection. I was merely citing existing legal precedent.

In particular, obscenity is a rather controversial legal concept, since it is exceedingly hard to even define. Obscenity laws vary widely between jurisdictions and communities.