It is not absolute in its free speech clauses. There's the doctrine of "fighting words."
Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.
The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violenc
I know that the doctrine of fighting words has been substially eroded since Chaplinsky. But with 70% of the country against the mosque, I’d say there is still a strong legal case to be made for a limitation on the free exercise of religion clauses of the first amendment. IMO, it’s time this was challenged legally. It’s time to stop lying supine forever before the statement “free exercise of religion,†especially from known anti-Christian Orwellian fascists. There is probably a much stronger case to be made against limitation on free exercise than on free speech, now, thanks to the left’s own anti-Christian efforts. But in the case of the GZ mosque, the danger of violent confrontation is probably, in fact, imminent.
