An “X” post by End Wokeness post described Hendrix as being found guilty “for using the n-word,” and it has drawn over 5 million views. That is not what she was found guilty of—I just used the word “nigger” in this post. Oops, I did it again! There are no banned words in the United States, and only retards and Tim Waltz think there are. However, words can constitute “fighting words” under certain circumstances. It is a gray area that the U.S. Supreme Court has tried repeatedly to clarify, obviously unsuccessfully.

U.S. Supreme Court first defined “them”fighting words” in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) as words 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.”

Then, in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that only words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest should not be considered fighting words; they still are protected by the First Amendment.

Feiner v. People of State of New York, three years later, held that the use of words to incite a riot is also not protected by the First Amendment, and in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court again redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are “a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” In that case the Court held that burning an American flag, which is symbolic speech, does not constitute “fighting words.”

Finally, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) held that the “First Amendment prevents the government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed.” Even if the words are considered to be “fighting words,” the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction constitutes ‘viewpoint discrimination.” 

See? Clear as mud.

I want to see this case go to the Supreme Court, and I hope Hendrix loses while spending lots of money in the process. When I wrote about the debacle, I didn’t consider the fighting words angle and expected Minnesota’s focus was to be on “hate speech,” a favored device for the totalitarian Left to muzzle ideas and arguments it finds inconvenient to its plans for societal domination. “Nigger” isn’t an expression of an opinion or a thought in the context Hendricks was wielding it. It is pure denigration…not an “essential part of any exposition of ideas”, and are ” but “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.”

I would add “civility” to “order and morality.” In today’s culture, calling a black man or woman a “nigger” doesn’t express a thought or an argument, and the slur has been “a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs” for almost a century: baseball and civil rights icon Jackie Robinson received a dishonorable discharge from the Army for striking a superior who directed the word at him.

A SCOTUS case based on the Minnesota confrontation would have some fascinating wrinkles. For example, is a woman using the word really inviting a black male to “fisticuffs”? Ruling otherwise would create an anomalous situation where women could call black men “niggers” but men could not. The fact that Shiloh Hendrix sought to profit by her racism—and has!— is also a confounding factor, though I don’t see how that could factor into the constitutional issue. Another hurdle, a legal logical pretzel in the making, is the Samuel L. Jackson Syndrome. Blacks can call blacks niggers, but whites cannot?

Even so, I do not believe that Shiloh Hendrix’s conviction is as outrageous and unjust as many seem to think. I definitely believe that supporting Hendrix is a trap, giving the Left ample ammunition to claim that the conservative side of the ideological spectrum is indeed committed to racism and white supremacy. There is no defending a white person who calls a black individual a nigger, and there is no conceivable benefit to society of the courts not labeling doing so unprotected by the First Amendment.

________________

Post script: How does the Minnesota news reader in the video get away with going on camera looking like that?