Then you concede that he instigated the attack. You don’t need to continue blaming the victim’s violent response, because responsibility for those acts falls on the harassing instigator.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942[1]
His works and words certainly meet the court’s criteria. He wasn’t just generally offensive; he personalized his lewd, obscene, and libelous harassment directly toward his chosen victim.
Then I have confused this chain with another but since you’re posting in several of them, it’s an easy thing to do.
Then you concede that he instigated the attack. You don’t need to continue blaming the victim’s violent response, because responsibility for those acts falls on the harassing instigator.
No, I don’t concede he instigated the attack.
Intriguing. Please explain why “instigation” does not apply here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
His works and words certainly meet the court’s criteria. He wasn’t just generally offensive; he personalized his lewd, obscene, and libelous harassment directly toward his chosen victim.
Disagree.
“Instigation” is the only justification available for mitigation. Do you think she should be charged with assault and battery?