Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) may be a more appropriate citation in this matter.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/47/
The conclusion on this page is what sounded germane this situation. I fail to see where this guy was inciting immediate violence on the part of either Repent America or the "Pink Angels".
CBBob, your thoughts on this would be appreciated...
L,Town,
I was only letting someone know what the definition of fighting words was and where it could be found. The bright-Line test in Brandenburg, speech must be incitement and the speaker must have knowledge that incitement would occur (to violenece)could also be used. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) may hold sway here, regarding Jehovan Witnesses playing Anti-Catholic recordings in predominately Catholic area. or R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) where the Court found a speech restriction ordinance invalid on its face because it prohibited speech solely on the basis of its content. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion noting that the First Amendment did allow restrictions based on content in certain categories of speech like libel, obscenity, or fighting words but quoting from Chaplinsky he noted that such words were "of such a slight social value as a step to truth that any societal benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." In this present case it cannot be said that the social interest, in suppressing speech, outweighs the societal benefit.