On May 4, 2015, we woke up to the news that a Draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas was disrupted by a terrorist attack by two wannabes that was quickly crushed by heavily armed security forces in the auditorium. Free speech was saved once again, just like when neo-Nazis marched among Holocaust survivors and the Ku Klux Klan marched somewhere before illegal acts of violence and death. Then we have that Westboro Baptist church that seems to hate the US military and gays. The Garland event disturbed me on a personal level because I was a substitute teacher in that school district happily for more than five years, often in the bilingual elementary school. A saddened Garland resident noted that the Islamophobic event only drew 200 people in a city of 234,000 just east of Dallas.

Now we can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one, or creating child pornography, so there are some limits. There’s others? I decided to go on an internet search and go to a Wikipedia site first.

“Fighting words” is “speech tending to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight. Personally abusive words are inherently likely to cause a backlash… a personal insult. It is important to note that this position is limited to private figures. Therefore, I was within my rights when I yelled a swear word and “put myself in someone’s face” for wearing a Ho Chi Minh T-shirt in a public place. As a former ESOL teacher for South Vietnamese POWs, I was outraged to see someone proclaim the dictator of North Vietnam. I’m sure an older man who was a veteran of the Vietnam War would have behaved in a similar, albeit more violent, manner. However, my anger soon turned to sadness at the subsequent childish ramblings of my much younger and more likeable acquaintance.

The “Fighting Words” limit was upheld in the Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942 verdict. Chief Justice Frank Murphy upheld the arrest of a Jehovah’s Witness sidewalk preacher, who called the arresting officer a mobster (beep) and a fucking fascist, while religion organized is a scam. Such fighting words did not contribute to the expression of the idea or something of value in the search for truth. Keep in mind that these fascist accusations occurred at the height of WWII!

“Intentional infliction of emotional distress” (IED) occurs when the defendant (1) acts intentionally or recklessly, (2) engages in extreme and outrageous conduct, and (3) the act is the cause of anguish. (4) The plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct.

“Extreme and outrageous conduct” means the following: (1) a pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial slurs were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty, which means a legal or ethical relationship of trust. Pay close attention to #3: The defender was in a position of power. That is the opposite of the grounds for prosecuting the “Fighting Words” version of the limits on free speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Let’s look at some earlier highlights in the career of Geert Wilders, a guest speaker at the Draw Muhammad contest in Garland that was reported on in The Economist.

Wilders incited a crowd of supporters to chant that they wanted “less Moroccans”, to which he replied: “Then we’ll take care of that.” He faces prosecution for comments that prosecutors say demonized a population group rather than criticizing a religion. Wilders uses the prosecutions to be a martyr for free speech. Wilders has a permanent goal of banning the Qur’an by comparing it to Hitler’s Mein Kamf, a manifesto that is banned in the Netherlands.

McClatchyDC.com quotes a political science professor noting “fighting words” and incitement.

“There are two exceptions to the constitutional right to free speech: defamation and the doctrine of ‘fighting words’ or ‘incitement,'” said John Szmer, associate professor of political science and constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte. .

“Fighting words are the idea that you are saying something so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you’re saying something and you should expect a backlash from other people.” The cartoon exhibit in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that what they were doing would incite a backlash,” he said.

The event was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an anti-Muslim hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Its leader, Pamela Geller, has made outrageous claims, including that President Barack Obama is the beloved son of Malcolm X. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/04/265537/after-texas-shooting-if -free -speech.html

Since Ms. Geller and Mr. Wilders are public figures, they could have been brought to court under the “extreme and outrageous conduct” limit on free speech. They are in a “position of power” and it is certainly a “pattern of behavior, not an isolated event.” In the previous decade, I received a comment on a developmental English proficiency test that I have come to respect. The essay’s message was “Should there be free speech on campus?” The young woman wrote that no one should speak ill of someone’s mother. We need that spirit in interfaith discussions; Either that, or bring back the duel.