Political Divide Blurs on Free Speech and "Fighting Words" Doctrine

A recent social media post by prominent free speech advocate Greg Lukianoff suggests a significant ideological convergence between the political right and left on issues traditionally viewed as distinct. Lukianoff, known for his work defending free expression, highlighted a perceived shift in how both sides approach concepts like the "fighting words doctrine," hate speech, and misinformation.

"Okay, now the right is replacing the left in embracing the fighting words doctrine which was established in part by an activist calling a cop a “fascist”," Lukianoff stated in his tweet. "I think that's a clean sweep! The right and the left now officially agree on everything from hate speech, to misinformation, to “consequence culture“ (except for who is guilty)!"

The "fighting words doctrine," established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), defines certain words as unprotected by the First Amendment if they "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." This doctrine originated from a case where a Jehovah's Witness called a police officer a "God-damned racketeer" and "damned fascist," leading to his arrest. While the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of this doctrine over the decades, it remains a part of First Amendment law, primarily applied in lower courts.

Lukianoff's observation points to a reversal of traditional stances, where the left historically expressed more concern over speech deemed harmful, while the right championed broad free speech protections. His tweet implies that the right is now increasingly advocating for restrictions on speech it considers offensive or inciting, mirroring positions previously associated with the left. This includes broader agreements on addressing "hate speech" and "misinformation," though with differing views on who is culpable.

The term "consequence culture," also mentioned by Lukianoff, refers to the societal practice of holding individuals accountable for their words or actions, often leading to professional or social repercussions. This concept, intertwined with debates around cancel culture, further illustrates the complex and evolving landscape of free expression and accountability in contemporary society, with both political factions engaging in its application.