Speech That "By Its Very Utterance Inflicts Injury"
VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu
Fri Apr 27 18:00:14 PDT 2001
Does anyone know of any lower court cases in the last 30 years that
have concluded that Chaplinsky indeed authorizes the punishment not only of
speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace," but also
of speech that "by [its] very utterance inflict[s] injury"?
I know that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't said much about this
latter doctrine since Chaplinsky; that many good arguments have been made
against it (and for that matter against the "tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace" exception); and that the "by its very utterance
inflicts injury" exception is not really an officially recognized exception.
I just wonder if it has any vitality at all in the lower court cases.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof