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.
Cantwell and Chaplinsky are excellent references, and I was'nt trying to argue with you, FRiend. Looking at the charges and that the 1969 decision is the most recent decision involving a "public safety <---> freedom of speech" case, I wanted to make sure it did'nt get overlooked.
I am glad you mentioned Cantwell in your reply to me; that may be circumstancially, the most similar legal situation we have. The felony charges levied by the Philadelphia LEO's brought to my mind Brandenburg, though.
I would still like to hear what Billybob thinks about this, though.