Legal Definition of Fighting Words and Instigating Conflict

An individual has been arrested in San Diego following a series of incidents involving the harassment of people at local post offices. The arrest follows reports that the individual engaged in confrontational behavior and used pepper spray during an encounter.

According to reports from April 12, 2026, the suspect allegedly used fighting words to instigate a conflict before deploying pepper spray. The incidents occurred at post office locations, where the individual had been harassing others.

The Legal Doctrine of Fighting Words

The mention of fighting words in relation to the conflict invokes a specific and narrow exception to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Fighting words are generally defined as spoken words intended to provoke a retaliatory act of violence against the speaker.

View this post on Instagram

The U.S. Supreme Court first established this doctrine in the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In that decision, the Court defined fighting words as those which by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

The Court noted that such utterances are not considered an essential part of the exposition of ideas and possess such slight social value that the interest in maintaining order and morality outweighs any benefit derived from them.

Evolution of the First Amendment Exception

Over several decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has further clarified and narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words to ensure that legitimate speech is not unfairly punished.

In the 1949 case Terminiello v. Chicago, the Court distinguished between words that invite dispute or cause unrest—which remain protected—and words that produce a clear and present danger, which are unprotected.

By 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court redefined the doctrine to specifically mean words that serve as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. In that specific case, the Court determined that symbolic speech, such as the burning of the United States flag, did not constitute fighting words.

Further limitations were placed on the government’s ability to punish such speech in R.A.V. V. City of St. Paul (1992). The Court found that the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing expressive conduct or speech simply because it disapproves of the ideas expressed.

Criteria for Unprotected Speech

For speech to be classified as fighting words and therefore lose First Amendment protection, it typically must meet several strict criteria:

• The words must be spoken directly to an individual.
• The interaction must occur in a face-to-face confrontation.
• The words must be likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person.

If a speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination, the First Amendment may still protect the speech, even if the words are considered fighting words.

The suspect in the San Diego case was arrested after allegedly using such provocative language to instigate a conflict, which subsequently escalated to the use of pepper spray.