Fighting Words, Not Fighting Words

So, it is suggested that I do not understand the fighting words doctrine.

To which I must respond that the problem is that you are thinking of the fighting words doctrine, not the fighting words doctrine. 🙂

Or, to clarify:

Under American law, the fighting words doctrine is a highly circumscribed, restricted list of insults direct that are so very likely to promote an immediate affray that they are not protected by the First Amendment.

Under Imperial law, the fighting words doctrine is a highly circumscribed, restricted list of insults direct that are so very likely to promote an immediate affray that the speaker of them¹ does not get to complain, sue over, or initiate criminal proceedings about what happens next, on the grounds that they knew perfectly well what they were asking for and thus consented to the painful and bloody consequences.

And a mutually-agreed-upon ass-beating ain’t a breach of the Empress’s peace, y’see. Unless you insist on involving bystanders, causing property damage, or frightening the horse-analogs.

1. Or, for that matter, their estate.