If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy.
Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.
Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.
Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.
'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.
It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.
It's true that the definition of 'fighting words' has narrowed considerably over the years, but the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments.
It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech.
If I'm wrong, then cite its use.
'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not.
'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.
This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.
Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"
Which is why it is important to have equality of speech.
"Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.
You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.
If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword.
That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.
>You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.
How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes?
Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.