[dfwgator]

However, I could see an argument that what WBC does could be construed in the same manner as “Fighting Words”.

From Wikipedia:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that “insulting or ‘fighting words,’ those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [that] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”

[TexasAg]

However, I could see an argument that what WBC does could be construed in the same manner as “Fighting Words”.

Then you should consider what the "fighting words" were in Chaplinsky:

“You are a ... damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”

Those are things half the people on FR say. Not to mention that Chaplinsky has never been overturned but has been severely limited. I don't want the government saying which speech is offensive and can be punished. Because the next step is going after preachers, and conservative protesters, and on and on.

[Benchim]

That case was totally over ruled today (8-1) as being an attempt to regulate speech. The problem is :please define”Fighting Words” in such a manner as to guide one to avoid it. It is completely ambiguous and vague . The decisions clarifies that with this bright line decision. — Good law. Say anything you want out of the work place. That is your absolute and unmitigated right as an American.