1.    Ct’s opinion
a.    No, and D’s conviction is upheld since his words were indeed
ones which would likely provoke the average person to retaliate.
Among classes of speech that the First Am. does not protect are
“fighting words,” since fighting words, like obscenity, libel, etc.,
have no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such
slight social value at revealing truth that any benefit of allowing
them to fall under the First Am. is clearly outweighed by the social
interest in order and morality.
1.    Dave says the Ct is drawing from Beauharnais here.
b.    The definition of fighting words is:  “Those [words] which by
their very utterance inflict injury OR tend to incite an immediate
breach of the peace.”  The words must likely provoke the average
person to retaliate.  Examples of fighting words include “classical
fighting words,” current words equally likely to cause violence, and
“other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”
1.    Observe that this definition has two parts—words that are
likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace OR that inflict
injury.  Most subsequent ct opinions have only focused on words that
likely to incite an immediate breach, not words that inflict injury.
2.  The Court since Beauharnais has rarely found the “fighting words”
doctrine applicable, but the doctrine has not been explicitly
overruled and still might apply.