City of Helena v. Mayfield
Generally, when a court is determining whether or not someone's speech is protected under the First Amendment, "fighting words" are those likely to provoke immediate violence. But in City of Helena v. Mayfield, the Montana First Judicial District Court's ruling relied on a previous case, State v. Robinson, in which the Montana Supreme Court ruled that insulting a police officer constitutes unprotected fighting words because it is “sufficiently and inherently inflammatory” and does not contribute “to our constitutionally-protected social discourse.”
Joined by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), ACLU of Montana filed an amicus brief in the Montana Supreme Court arguing that Robinson should be overruled. If speech critical of the government can be punished as fighting words merely because—in the government’s view—it is inflammatory and/or fruitless, the government could suppress speech entitled to the highest level of protection. Moreover, even speech on the periphery of the First Amendment is afforded protection to safeguard freedom of expression. If Robinson remains on the books, courts will continue to invoke it—as the trial court did here—to authorize government retaliation against clearly protected expression.