3.  Speech Conflicting With Other Community Values

C. "Fighting Words" and Offensive Speech

• What was the defendant's conduct on the basis of which he was prosecuted?
• the expression of an objectionable opinion?
• playing a phonograph on the streets?
• What was the definition of the crime with which he was charged?
• Is the speech involved in this case distinguishable from "subversive speech" (previous assignment)? Is one more appropriately suppressed than another?
• speech which advocates and intends to produce a violent or otherwise unlawful audience action toward others?
• speech which in fact produces a violent audience reaction toward the speaker?

• What was the defendant's conduct forming the basis of prosecution?
• How did the statute define the crime with which he was charged?
• Why was Chaplinsky's speech unprotected?

R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, p. 1317 (1992)

• What conduct is being prosecuted?
• How does the ordinance define the crime?
• Any doubt that the conduct in question is unlawful?
• Why did the city choose this particular crime to charge the petitioner with?
• How did the Justices divide in their analysis of the case?
• is the ordinance "overbroad" in its original language?
• on what basis did the Minnesota courts attempt to narrow the meaning of the ordinance, so as to remove the overbreadth problem?
• on what ground does the minority reject the state court's interpretation?
• does selective prohibition of unprotected speech itself present a First Amendment problem? An equal protection problem?
• does "strict scrutiny" apply here? if so why?
• Is it crucial to this case that the speech was aimed at a minority group?