SOME SPEECH CAUSES lawless behavior by promoting it. The Supreme Court has held that such speech, known as incitement, can be censored. Other speech leads to lawlessness, not because it explicitly promotes it, but because it provokes anger and lawless action in others. Should such speech be censored, too? The Court has taken a divided view. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court ruled that when a person says things to provoke a fight, he or she is not protected by the First Amendment. A public speech is different, however. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court declared that when a public speech "stirs anger" and even "induces a condition of unrest," it is up to the government to protect the speaker.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the Court created the "fighting words" exception to First Amendment protection. The Court defined "fighting words" as personally...