I like many of you have been reading blogs and opinions adnauseum about protecting offensive speech (((not to mention the nooumerous news stories))) I am struck as to the overwhelming narrative on the need to protect hateful, hurtful expression, and the paucity of thought on the fact that not ALL speech is protected.
It is absolutely correct to protect the dissenting and angry expression, yet that anger and that dissent has to be based on whether it presents a “clear and present danger.”
There are two areas of unprotected speech that I think might come into play here, one is obscene language, the other is “fighting words.”
