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.

One thought on “Fighting Words, Not Fighting Words

  1. Now see, that makes sense, and we can’t be having that around *these* parts, brother-sir!

    Oh, who am I kidding? I rather /like/ the Imperial take on it, truth be told. It’s basically “play stupid games with stupid people in stupid places, win stupid prizes”, but set to legal code!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s