Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court overturns ban on videos depicting animal cruelty/The holding in Chaplinsky should be abandoned

It was generally expected that the court would rule the law at issue unconstitutional, and I'm happy that they followed this expectation. The opinion, however, contains some unfortunate content. Most unfortunate, I think, is the affirmative citation of what should be a decrepit precedent: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. There is no reason for the category of "fighting words" established by that case to fall outside free speech protections. "Fighting words" are essentially just inflammatory statements made in the heat of the moment and intended to be confrontational. Chaplinsky seems to stand for the position that these words should be prohibited because the person hearing them might be prompted to a criminal act (assault upon the speaker). Freedom of speech should not be held hostage to some people's propensity for criminal behaviour, and it's insulting to the American people to assume that we have no facility for self-control, being prompted to violent acts as a mechanical consequence of the utterance of some verbal barbs. A human being is not like a magical door that takes some prescribed response to the utterance of "open sesame." Whatever reactions people choose to have to any given speech are just that &mdash; chosen. One person should not be subject to punishment by the government for actions freely elected by another individual. Those who do not refrain from aggressive violence are the ones rightfully to be punished.