Speech That "By Its Very Utterance Inflicts Injury"

[Volokh, Eugene]

        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.

        Thanks,

        Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010427/74dbcbe8/attachment.htm