Whether Referring To A Law Enforcement Officer By A Racial Epithet While Protesting An Enforcement Action Constitutes Fighting Words Unprotected By The First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED It is unsurprising that, during the uneasiness spawned by a summer of unrest in several of the nation’s urban areas following police shootings of men of color — a series of events giving rise to a loose association of protestors under the banner “Black Lives Matter,” — a state’s highest court could conclude that racial epithets directed at an on-duty law enforcement officer constitute “fighting words” and support a criminal prosecution for breach of the peace. The First Amendment, however, offers broader and deeper protection of offensive speech than a passing wave of political sensitivity affords. By concluding that “vulgar” and “racially charged” remarks directed at a parking enforcement officer are “fighting words,” Connecticut’s Supreme Court retreated from this Court’s “fighting words” precedents and charted a course toward a broad First Amendment exception that prohibits speech merely because it is hateful. The question presented is: Whether Referring To A Law Enforcement Officer By A Racial Epithet While Protesting An Enforcement Action Constitutes Fighting Words Unprotected By The First Amendment.