I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:
"
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. 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. "
And further went on to say:
"
The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."
I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)
