paul argued december decided june allegedly burning cross black family lawn petitioner charged inter alia paul minnesota crime ordinance prohibits display symbol one knows reason know arouses anger alarm resentment others basis race color creed religion gender trial dismissed charge ground ordinance substantially overbroad impermissibly content based state reversed rejected overbreadth claim phrase arouses anger alarm resentment others construed earlier state cases limit ordinance reach fighting words within meaning decision chaplinsky new hampshire category expression unprotected first amendment also concluded ordinance impermissibly content based narrowly tailored serve compelling governmental interest protecting community threats public safety order held ordinance facially invalid first amendment pp bound state construction ordinance reaching expressions constituting fighting words however request scope chaplinsky formulation modified thereby invalidating ordinance substantially overbroad need reached since ordinance unconstitutionally prohibits speech basis subjects speech addresses limited categories speech obscenity defamation fighting words may regulated constitutionally proscribable content however categories entirely invisible constitution government may regulate based hostility favoritism towards nonproscribable message contain thus regulation fighting words may based nonproscribable content may however underinclusive addressing offensive instances leaving equally offensive ones alone long selective prescription based content realistic possibility regulation ideas afoot pp ordinance even narrowly construed state facially unconstitutional imposes special prohibitions speakers express views disfavored subjects race color creed religion gender time permits displays containing abusive invective addressed topics moreover practical operation ordinance goes beyond mere content actual viewpoint discrimination displays containing fighting words invoke disfavored subjects seemingly useable ad libitum arguing favor racial color tolerance equality opponents paul desire communicate minority groups condone group hatred speech justify selectively silencing speech basis content pp discrimination reflected ordinance rest upon reasons particular class speech issue proscribable aimed secondary effects speech within meaning renton playtime theatres reason sort threaten censorship ideas addition ordinance content discrimination justified ground ordinance narrowly tailored serve compelling state interest ensuring basic human rights groups historically discriminated since ordinance limited favored topics precisely beneficial effect pp scalia delivered opinion rehnquist kennedy souter thomas joined white filed opinion concurring judgment blackmun joined stevens joined except part post blackmun filed opinion concurring judgment post stevens filed opinion concurring judgment part white blackmun joined post edward cleary argued cause petitioner briefs michael cromett tom foley argued cause respondent brief steven decoster briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed american civil liberties union et al steven shapiro john powell mark anfinson association american publishers et al bruce ennis center individual rights gary born michael mcdonald briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed state minnesota et al hubert humphrey iii attorney general minnesota richard slowes assistant attorney general jimmy evans attorney general alabama grant woods attorney general arizona richard blumenthal attorney general connecticut john kelly chief state attorney connecticut larry echohawk attorney general idaho roland burris attorney general illinois robert stephan attorney general kansas joseph curran attorney general maryland scott harshbarger attorney general massachusetts frank kelley attorney general michigan robert del tufo attorney general new jersey lee fisher attorney general ohio susan loving attorney general oklahoma travis medlock attorney general south carolina charles burson attorney general tennessee mary sue terry attorney general virginia paul van dam attorney general utah league allen saeks jeffrey sinensky steven freeman michael lieberman asian american legal defense education fund et al angelo ancheta center democratic renewal et al frank deale criminal justice legal foundation kent scheidegger charles hobson league minnesota cities et al carla heyl robert alfton jerome segal national association advancement colored people et al ronald maines dennis hayes willie abrams kemp harshman national black women health project catharine mackinnon burke marshall national institute municipal law officers et al richard ruda michael wahoske mark rotenberg people american way richard hoffman kevin hasson elliot mincberg charles sheppard filed brief patriot defense foundation amicus curiae justice scalia delivered opinion predawn hours june petitioner several teenagers allegedly assembled crudely made cross taping together broken chair legs allegedly burned cross inside fenced yard black family lived across street house petitioner staying although conduct punished number laws one two provisions respondent city paul chose charge petitioner juvenile paul crime ordinance paul provides whoever places public private property symbol object appellation characterization graffiti including limited burning cross nazi swastika one knows reasonable grounds know arouses anger alarm resentment others basis race color creed religion gender commits disorderly conduct shall guilty misdemeanor construing paul ordinance bound construction given minnesota posadas de puerto rico associates tourism puerto rico new york ferber terminiello chicago accordingly accept minnesota authoritative statement ordinance reaches expressions constitute fighting words within meaning chaplinsky petitioner amici urge us modify scope chaplinsky formulation thereby invalidating ordinance substantially overbroad broadrick oklahoma find unnecessary consider issue assuming arguendo expression reached ordinance proscribable fighting words doctrine nonetheless conclude ordinance facially unconstitutional prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely basis subjects speech addresses first amendment generally prevents government proscribing speech see cantwell connecticut even expressive conduct see texas johnson disapproval ideas expressed regulations presumptively invalid simon schuster members state crime victims kennedy concurring judgment consolidated edison public serv police dept chicago mosley present however society like free civilized societies permitted restrictions upon content speech limited areas slight social value step truth benefit may derived clearly outweighed social interest order morality chaplinsky supra recognized freedom speech referred first amendment include freedom disregard traditional limitations see roth obscenity beauharnais illinois defamation chaplinsky new hampshire supra fighting words see generally simon schuster supra kennedy concurring judgment decisions since narrowed scope traditional categorical exceptions defamation see new york times sullivan gertz robert welch see generally milkovich lorain journal obscenity see miller california limited categorical approach remained important part first amendment jurisprudence sometimes said categories expression within area constitutionally protected speech roth supra beauharnais supra chaplinsky protection first amendment extend bose consumers union sable communications fcc statements must taken context however literally true occasionally repeated shorthand characterizing obscenity speech sunstein pornography first amendment duke mean areas speech consistently first amendment regulated constitutionally proscribable content obscenity defamation etc categories speech entirely invisible constitution may made vehicles content discrimination unrelated distinctively proscribable content thus government may proscribe libel may make content discrimination proscribing libel critical government recently acknowledged distinction ferber upholding new york child pornography law expressly recognized question censoring particular literary theme see also concurring drafted new york statute attempt suppress communication particular ideas cases surely establish proposition first amendment imposes obstacle whatsoever regulation particular instances proscribable expression government may regulate freely post white concurring judgment mean city council enact ordinance prohibiting legally obscene works contain criticism city government indeed include endorsement city government simplistic approach first amendment protection odds common sense jurisprudence well true fighting words de minimis expressive content content respects worthless undeserving constitutional protection post sometimes quite expressive indeed said constitute part expression ideas constitute essential part exposition ideas chaplinsky supra emphasis added proposition particular instance speech proscribable basis one feature obscenity basis another opposition city government commonplace found application many contexts long held example nonverbal expressive activity banned action entails ideas expresses burning flag violation ordinance outdoor fires punishable whereas burning flag violation ordinance dishonoring flag see johnson see also barnes glen theatre plurality opinion scalia concurring judgment souter concurring judgment similarly upheld reasonable time place manner restrictions justified without reference content regulated speech ward rock racism internal quotation marks omitted see also clark community creative noting test differs little standard applied time place manner restrictions power proscribe particular speech basis element noise entail power proscribe speech basis content element also power proscribe basis one content element obscenity entail power proscribe basis content elements words exclusion fighting words scope first amendment simply means purposes amendment unprotected features words despite verbal character essentially nonspeech element communication fighting words thus analogous noisy sound truck justice frankfurter recognized mode speech niemotko maryland opinion concurring result used convey idea neither claim upon first amendment sound truck however also fighting words government may regulate use based hostility favoritism towards underlying message expressed compare frisby schultz upholding facial challenge ban targeted residential picketing carey brown invalidating ban residential picketing exempted labor picketing concurrences describe us setting forth new first amendment principle prohibition constitutionally proscribable speech underinclusiv post white concurring judgment first amendment absolutism whereby ithin particular proscribable category expression government must either proscribe speech speech post stevens concurring judgment easy target concurrences invention view first amendment imposes underinclusiveness limitation content discrimination limitation upon state prohibition proscribable speech problem whatever example state prohibiting obscenity forms proscribable expression certain media markets although prohibition underinclusive discriminate basis content see sable communications upholding prohibits obscene telephone communications even prohibition content discrimination assert first amendment requires absolute applies differently context proscribable speech area fully protected speech rationale general prohibition content discrimination raises specter government may effectively drive certain ideas viewpoints marketplace simon schuster leathers medlock fcc league women voters consolidated edison police dept chicago mosley content discrimination among various instances class proscribable speech often pose threat basis content discrimination consists entirely reason entire class speech issue proscribable significant danger idea viewpoint discrimination exists reason adjudged neutral enough support exclusion entire class speech first amendment protection also neutral enough form basis distinction within class illustrate state might choose prohibit obscenity patently offensive prurience involves lascivious displays sexual activity may prohibit example obscenity includes offensive political messages see kucharek hanaway cert denied federal government criminalize threats violence directed president see since reasons threats violence outside first amendment protecting individuals fear violence disruption fear engenders possibility threatened violence occur special force applied person president see watts upholding facial validity overwhelmin interest protecting safety chief executive allowing perform duties without interference threats physical violence federal government may criminalize threats president mention policy aid inner cities take final example one mentioned justice stevens post state may choose regulate price advertising one industry others risk fraud one characteristics commercial speech justifies depriving full first amendment protection see virginia state bd pharmacy virginia citizens consumer council view greater cf morales trans world airlines state regulation airline advertising ohralik ohio state bar state regulation lawyer advertising state may prohibit commercial advertising depicts men demeaning fashion see los angeles times section another valid basis according differential treatment even subclass proscribable speech subclass happens associated particular secondary effects speech regulation justified without reference content speech renton playtime theatres quoting emphasis virginia state bd pharmacy supra see also young american mini theatres plurality opinion powell concurring barnes souter concurring judgment state example permit obscene live performances except involving minors moreover since words circumstances violate laws directed speech conduct law treason example violated telling enemy nation defense secrets particular subcategory proscribable class speech swept incidentally within reach statute directed conduct rather speech see plurality opinion scalia concurring judgment souter concurring judgment ftc superior trial lawyers thus example sexually derogatory fighting words among words may produce violation title vii general prohibition sexual discrimination employment practices cfr see also government target conduct basis expressive content acts shielded regulation merely express discriminatory idea philosophy bases distinction refute proposition selectivity restriction even arguably conditioned upon sovereign agreement speaker may intend say metromedia san diego stevens dissenting part citation omitted may bases well indeed validate selectivity totally proscribable speech issue may even necessary identify particular neutral basis long nature content discrimination realistic possibility official suppression ideas afoot think first amendment interest stand way state prohibiting obscene motion pictures actresses save limitation regulation fighting words like regulation noisy speech may address offensive instances leave equally offensive instances alone see posadas de puerto rico ii applying principles paul ordinance conclude even narrowly construed minnesota ordinance facially unconstitutional although phrase ordinance arouses anger alarm resentment others limited minnesota construction reach symbols displays amount fighting words remaining unmodified terms make clear ordinance applies fighting words insult provoke violence basis race color creed religion gender displays containing abusive invective matter vicious severe permissible unless addressed one specified disfavored topics wish use fighting words connection ideas express hostility example basis political affiliation union membership homosexuality covered first amendment permit paul impose special prohibitions speakers express views disfavored subjects see simon schuster arkansas writers project ragland practical operation moreover ordinance goes even beyond mere content discrimination actual viewpoint discrimination displays containing words odious racial epithets example prohibited proponents views fighting words invoke race color creed religion gender aspersions upon person mother example seemingly usable ad libitum placards arguing favor racial color tolerance equality used speakers opponents one hold sign saying example bigots misbegotten papists insult provoke violence basis religion paul authority license one side debate fight freestyle requiring follow marquis queensberry rules must emphasized prohibition fighting words directed certain persons groups facially valid met requirements equal protection clause rather prohibition fighting words contain minnesota repeatedly emphasized messages hatred particular applied case messages based virulent notions racial supremacy one must wholeheartedly agree minnesota responsibility even obligation diverse communities confront notions whatever form appear manner confrontation consist selective limitations upon speech paul brief asserts general fighting words law meet city needs measure communicate minority groups group hatred aspect speech condoned majority brief respondent point first amendment majority preferences must expressed fashion silencing speech basis content despite fact minnesota paul acknowledge ordinance directed expression group hatred justice stevens suggests fundamentally misreads ordinance post directed claims speech particular content particular injur ies qualitatively different injuries post wordplay makes anger fear sense dishonor produced violation ordinance distinct anger fear sense dishonor produced fighting words nothing fact caused distinctive idea conveyed distinctive message first amendment evaded easily obvious symbols arouse anger alarm resentment others basis race color creed religion gender symbols communicate message hostility based one characteristics paul concedes brief ordinance applies racial religious symbols burning cross nazi swastika instrumentality like import brief respondent indeed paul argued juvenile burning cross express message fact content message paul ordinance attempts legislate memorandum ramsey county attorney honorable charles flinn dated july welfare ramsey cty juvenile reprinted app brief petitioner discrimination reflected paul ordinance comes within neither specific exceptions first amendment prohibition discussed earlier general exception content discrimination threaten censorship ideas assuredly fall within exception content discrimination based reasons particular class speech issue fighting words proscribable explained earlier see supra reason fighting words categorically excluded protection first amendment content communicates particular idea content embodies particularly intolerable socially unnecessary mode expressing whatever idea speaker wishes convey paul singled especially offensive mode expression example selected prohibition fighting words communicate ideas threatening opposed merely obnoxious manner rather proscribed fighting words whatever manner communicate messages racial gender religious intolerance selectivity sort creates possibility city seeking handicap expression particular ideas possibility alone enough render ordinance presumptively invalid paul comments concessions case elevate possibility certainty paul argues ordinance comes within another specific exceptions mentioned one allows content discrimination aimed secondary effects speech see renton playtime theatres according paul ordinance intended impact sic right free expression accused rather protect victimization person persons particularly vulnerable membership group historically discriminated brief respondent even assuming ordinance completely proscribes rather merely regulates specified category speech ever considered directed secondary effects speech clear paul ordinance directed secondary effects within meaning renton said boos barry listeners reactions speech type secondary effects referred renton emotive impact speech audience secondary effect ibid see also opinion brennan hardly needs discussion ordinance fall within general exception permitting selectivity reason beyond suspicion official suppression ideas statements paul case afford ample basis full confirmation suspicion finally paul amici defend conclusion minnesota even ordinance regulates expression based hostility towards protected ideological content discrimination nonetheless justified narrowly tailored serve compelling state interests specifically assert ordinance helps ensure basic human rights members groups historically subjected discrimination including right group members live peace wish doubt interests compelling ordinance said promote danger censorship presented facially statute leathers medlock requires weapon employed necessary serve asserted compelling interest burson freeman plurality opinion emphasis added perry ed assn perry local educators existence adequate alternatives thus undercut significantly defense statute boos barry supra casting considerable doubt government protestations asserted justification fact accurate description purpose effect law burson supra kennedy concurring see boos supra cf minneapolis star tribune minnesota revenue dispositive question case therefore whether content discrimination reasonably necessary achieve paul compelling interests plainly ordinance limited favored topics example precisely beneficial effect fact interest distinctively served content limitation displaying city council special hostility towards particular biases thus singled precisely first amendment forbids politicians paul entitled express hostility means imposing unique limitations upon speakers however benightedly disagree judgment minnesota reversed case remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion ordered footnotes petitioner also charged count delinquency petition violation supp racially motivated assaults petitioner challenge count contrary justice white suggestion post petitioner claim fairly included within questions presented petition certiorari see rule clear petition petitioner filings courts assertion paul ordinance violat es overbreadth principles first amendment pet cert technical overbreadth claim claim ordinance violated rights many third parties included contention ordinance overbroad sense restricting speech constitution permits even application content based important component petitioner argument along narrowly construing ordinance cover fighting words cure fundamental defect briefs petitioner argued narrowing construction ineffective boundaries vague brief petitioner denominating particular expression fighting word impact ideological content upon audience inconsistent first amendment reply brief petitioner ordinance overbroad vague narrowly construed emphasis added oral argument counsel petitioner reiterated second point one positions punishing fighting words others even though subcategory technically unprotected conduct ordinance still picking opinion disfavored message making clear state tr oral arg resting judgment upon contention departed criteria fairly included within petition see arkansas electric cooperative arkansas pub serv brown socialist workers campaign eddings oklahoma see generally stern gressman shapiro practice ed justice white concedes city council prohibit legally obscene works contain criticism city government post asserts consequence first amendment equal protection clause discrimination asserts rationally related legitimate government interest ibid course reason government interest legitimate one violates first amendment occasionally fused first amendment equal protection clause fashion least acknowledgment justice white afford make first amendment underlies analysis see police dept chicago mosley ordinance prohibiting nonlabor picketing violated equal protection clause appropriate governmental interest supporting distinction inasmuch first amendment means government power restrict expression message ideas subject matter content carey brown see generally simon schuster members state crime victims kennedy concurring judgment justice stevens seeks avoid point dismissing notion obscene antigovernment speech fantastical post apparently believing reference politics prevents finding obscenity unfortunately purveyors obscenity obviously false shockingly hardcore pornographic movie contains model sporting political tattoo found taken whole lac serious literary artistic political scientific value miller california emphasis added anyway easy enough come illustrations restriction upon unprotected speech obviously invalid antigovernment libel illustration mentioned earlier one see supra course concept racist fighting words unfortunately anything highly speculative hypothetica post although justice white asserts analysis disregards established principles first amendment law post cites single case aware none even involved much less considered resolved issue content discrimination regulation unprotected speech though plainly recognized issue new york ferber course contrary traditions jurisprudence consider law point conclusively resolved broad language cases issue presented even envisioned justice stevens cites string opinions supporting assertion selective regulation speech based content presumptively invalid post analysis reveals however support begin three command majority young american mini theatres plurality opinion fcc pacifica foundation plurality opinion lehman shaker heights plurality opinion two others even discuss first amendment morales trans world airlines jacob siegel ftc event contents establish readily concede presumptive invalidity mean invariable invalidity leaving room exceptions reasonable discrimination nonpublic forums see lehman supra see also cornelius naacp legal defense ed fund respect certain speech government employees see broadrick oklahoma see also civil service letter carriers paul argued case ordinance merely regulates subclass fighting words likely provoke violent response even one assumes appears unlikely categories selected may described justify selective regulation secondary effects theory reason expressive conduct especially correlated violence conveys particularly odious message chain causation thus necessarily run persuasive effect expressive component conduct barnes glen theatre souter concurring judgment clear paul ordinance regulates basis primary effect speech persuasive repellant force plurality reached different conclusion regard tennessee statute considered earlier term burson freeman light logical connection electioneering state compelling interest preventing voter intimidation election fraud inherent connection borne long history widespread consensus plurality concluded faced one rare case use facially restriction justified interests unrelated suppression ideas see also kennedy concurring justice white justice stevens therefore quite mistaken seek convert burson plurality passing comment first amendment require regulate problems exist endorsement revolutionary proposition suppression particular ideas justified ideas source trouble past post white concurring judgment post stevens concurring judgment justice white justice blackmun justice join justice stevens joins except part concurring judgment agree majority judgment minnesota reversed however agreement ends case easily decided within contours established first amendment law holding petitioner argues paul ordinance fatally overbroad criminalizes unprotected expression expression protected first amendment see part ii infra instead find ing unnecessary consider questions upon granted review ante holds ordinance facially unconstitutional ground never presented minnesota ground briefed parties ground requires serious departures teaching prior cases inconsistent plurality opinion burson freeman joined two five justices majority present case ordinarily eager abandon precedents twice within past month declined overturn longstanding controversial decisions questions constitutional law see director division taxation quill north dakota case benefit full briefing critical issue parties amici opportunity apprise us impact change law case declined abandon precedents invoking principle stare decisis supra quill supra present case majority casts aside first amendment doctrine without benefit briefing adopts untried theory hardly judicious way proceeding reasoning reaching result transparently wrong decisions plainly stated expression falling within certain limited categories lacks values first amendment designed protect constitution affords protection expression chaplinsky new hampshire made point clearest possible terms certain narrowly limited classes speech prevention punishment never thought raise constitutional problem well observed utterances essential part exposition ideas slight social value step truth benefit may derived clearly outweighed social interest order morality thus majority concedes see ante long held certain discrete categories expression proscribable basis content instance held individual falsely shouts fire crowded theater may claim protection first amendment schenck concluded neither child pornography obscenity protected first amendment new york ferber miller california roth observed eaving aside special considerations public officials public figures target libelous publication protected constitution ferber supra citations omitted categories held first amendment apply expressive content worthless de minimis value society chaplinsky supra departed principle emphasizing repeatedly within confines given classification evil restricted overwhelmingly outweighs expressive interests stake process adjudication required ferber supra bigelow virginia categorical approach provided principled narrowly focused means distinguishing expression government may regulate freely may regulate basis content upon showing compelling need today however announces earlier courts mean repeated statements certain categories expression within area constitutionally protected speech roth supra see ante citing beauharnais illinois chaplinsky supra bose supra sable communications fcc present submits clear statements must taken context literally true ante contrary statements meant precisely said categorical approach firmly entrenched part first amendment jurisprudence indeed roth reviewed guarantees freedom expression effect time ratification constitution concluded light history apparent unconditional phrasing first amendment intended protect every utterance decision today points othing precedents warrant ing disregard longstanding tradition burson scalia concurring judgment supra nevertheless majority holds first amendment protects narrow categories expression long held undeserving first amendment protection least extent lawmakers may regulate fighting words strictly others content announces distinctions violate first amendment government may regulate use based hostility favoritism towards underlying message expressed ante government want criminalize certain fighting words requires criminalize fighting words borrow phrase simplistic approach first amendment protection odds common sense jurisprudence well ante inconsistent hold government may proscribe entire category speech content speech evil ferber supra government may treat subset category differently without violating first amendment content subset definition worthless undeserving constitutional protection majority observation fighting words quite expressive indeed ante answer fighting words means exchanging views rallying supporters registering protest directed individuals provoke violence inflict injury chaplinsky therefore ban fighting words subset fighting words category restrict social evil hate speech without creating danger driving viewpoints marketplace see ante therefore insistence inventing brand first amendment underinclusiveness puzzles overbreadth doctrine redeeming virtue attempting avoid chilling protected expression broadrick oklahoma osborne ohio brockett spokane arcades ferber supra new underbreadth creation serves desirable function instead permits indeed invites continuation expressive conduct case evil worthless first amendment terms see ferber supra chaplinsky supra city paul cures underbreadth adding ordinance catchall phrase fighting words may constitutionally subject ordinance contribution holding first amendment jurisprudence surely negative one since necessarily signals expressions violence message intimidation racial hatred conveyed burning cross someone lawn sufficient value outweigh social interest order morality traditionally placed fighting words outside first amendment indeed characterizing fighting words form debate ante majority legitimates hate speech form public discussion furthermore obscures line speech regulated freely basis content narrow categories expression falling outside first amendment regulated basis content upon showing compelling state interest remaining expression placing fighting words long held valueless least equal constitutional footing political discourse forms speech deemed greatest social value majority devalues latter category see burson freeman supra eu san francisco cty democratic central second break precedent refuses sustain ordinance even though survive strict scrutiny applicable protected expression assuming arguendo paul ordinance regulation protected expression nevertheless pass first amendment review settled law upon showing regulation necessary serve compelling state interest narrowly drawn achieve end simon schuster members state crime victims quoting arkansas writers project ragland paul urged ordinance words majority helps ensure basic human rights members groups historically subjected discrimination ante expressly concedes interest compelling promoted ordinance ibid nevertheless treats strict scrutiny analysis irrelevant constitutionality legislation dispositive question whether content discrimination reasonably necessary order achieve paul compelling interests plainly ordinance limited favored topics example precisely beneficial effect ante abandonment doctrine inexplicable light decision burson freeman handed month ago burson seven eight participating members agreed strict scrutiny standard applied case involving first amendment challenge statute see plurality opinion stevens dissenting statute issue prohibited solicitation votes display distribution campaign materials within feet entrance polling place plurality concluded legislation survived strict scrutiny state asserted compelling interest regulating electioneering near polling places statute issue narrowly tailored accomplish goal significantly statute burson proscribe speech near polling places restricted political speech burson plurality included chief justice justice kennedy concluded distinction types speech required application strict scrutiny squarely rejected proposition legislation failed first amendment review drafted broader terms adopt laws address problems confront first amendment require regulate problems exist emphasis added analysis adopted majority present case applied burson challenged election law failed constitutional review distinction political nonpolitical speech characterized reasonably necessary ante achieve state interest regulating polling place premises rejection categorical analysis majority offers reasoned basis discarding firmly established strict scrutiny analysis time majority appears believe doctrinal revisionism necessary prevent elected lawmakers prohibiting libel members one political party another enacting similarly preposterous laws ante majority misguided although first amendment apply categories unprotected speech fighting words equal protection clause requires regulation unprotected speech rationally related legitimate government interest defamation statute drew distinctions basis political affiliation ordinance prohibiting legally obscene works contain criticism city government unquestionably fail review turning paul ordinance assuming arguendo majority ordinance constitutionally overbroad see part ii infra question pass equal protection review ordinance proscribes subset fighting words injure basis race color creed religion gender selective regulation reflects city judgment harms based race color creed religion gender pressing public concerns harms caused fighting words light nation long painful experience discrimination determination plainly reasonable indeed majority concedes interest compelling ante patched argument apparently nonexhaustive list ad hoc exceptions viewed either attempt confine effects decision facts case see post blackmun concurring judgment effort anticipate questions arise radical revision first amendment law instance majority give general application rule decides case today decision call question constitutionality statute making illegal threaten life president see watts per curiam surely statute singling certain threats incorporates distinction indicates government especially disfavors threats president opposed threats others see ante government prohibit threats directed president theory compelling reasons justifying enactment special legislation safeguard president irrelevant statute fail first amendment review save statute majority engrafted following exception onto newly announced first amendment rule distinctions may drawn within unprotected category speech basis distinctions reason entire class speech issue proscribable ante thus argument goes statute making illegal threaten life president constitutional since reasons threats violence outside first amendment protecting individuals fear violence disruption fear engenders possibility threatened violence occur special force applied person president ibid exception swallows majority rule certainly apply paul ordinance since reasons fighting words outside first amendment special force applied groups historically subjected discrimination avoid result analysis suggests fighting words simply mode communication rather category paul ordinance singled particularly objectionable mode communication ante majority confuses issue prohibition fighting words time place manner restriction ban class speech conveys overriding message personal injury imminent violence chaplinsky message ugliest directed groups long targets discrimination accordingly ordinance falls within first exception majority theory second exception posits certain regulations survive new regime regulated subclass happens associated particular secondary effects speech ante majority treats encompassing instances words violate laws directed speech conduct ibid simple explanation eagerness craft exception new first amendment rule general rule applies case title vii hostile work environment claims suddenly unconstitutional title vii civil rights act makes unlawful discriminate individual race color religion sex national origin regulations covering hostile workplace claims forbid sexual harassment includes nwelcome sexual advances requests sexual favors verbal physical conduct sexual nature create intimidating hostile offensive working environment cfr regulation prohibit workplace harassment generally focuses majority characterize disfavored topi sexual harassment ante way title vii similar paul ordinance majority condemns impose special prohibitions speakers express views disfavored subjects ibid broad principle uses decide present case hostile work environment claims based sexual harassment fail first amendment review general ban harassment workplace cover problem sexual harassment attempt proscribe subcategory sexually harassing expression violate first amendment hence majority second exception indicates insulate title vii hostile work environment claim underinclusiveness challenge sexually derogatory fighting words may produce violation title vii general prohibition sexual discrimination employment practices ante application exception hostile work environment claim hold close examination first hostile work environment regulation keyed presence absence economic quid pro quo meritor savings bank vinson impact speech victimized worker consequently regulation fall within secondary effects exception paul ordinance ante second majority focus statute general prohibition discrimination glosses language specific regulation governing hostile working environment reaches beyond incidental effect speech relationship broader statute specific regulation sufficient bring title vii regulation within paul need bring ordinance within exception add prefatory language concerning discrimination generally third exception theory deciding case majority concocts catchall exclusion protect unforeseen problems concern heightened given lack briefing majority decisional theory final exception apply cases realistic possibility official suppression ideas afoot ante demonstrated case concern official suppression ideas see supra majority discards notion hand ante see theory work nothing confuse law selection case rewrite first amendment law particularly inexplicable whole problem avoided deciding case settled first amendment principles ii although disagree analysis agree conclusion paul ordinance unconstitutional however decide case overbreadth grounds emphasized time overbreadth doctrine exception established principle person statute may constitutionally applied heard challenge statute ground may conceivably applied unconstitutionally others situations broadrick oklahoma brockett spokane arcades defendant prosecuted speech expressive conduct may challenge law face reaches protected expression even person activities protected first amendment possible harm society permitting unprotected speech go unpunished outweighed possibility protected speech others may muted broadrick supra osborne ohio new york ferber schaumburg citizens better environment gooding wilson however consistently held overbreadth analysis strong medicine may invoked strike entire statute overbreadth statute real substantial well judged relation statute plainly legitimate sweep broadrick statute susceptible limitation partial invalidation board airport los angeles jews jesus federal dealing federal statute challenged overbroad construe statute avoid constitutional problems statute subject limiting construction ferber course state also free deal state statute way ibid see osborne petitioner contends paul ordinance susceptible narrowing construction ordinance therefore considered written construed minnesota petitioner wrong state interpreted provision state law ignore interpretation even one reached construing statute first instance ibid kolender lawson hoffman estates flipside hoffman estates course mere presence state interpretation insulate statute overbreadth review stricken legislation construction supplied state failed cure overbreadth problem see lewis new orleans gooding supra cases looked statute construed determining whether contravened first amendment minnesota provided authoritative construction paul antibias ordinance consideration petitioner overbreadth claim must based interpretation agree petitioner ordinance invalid face although ordinance construed reaches categories speech constitutionally unprotected also criminalizes substantial amount expression however repugnant shielded first amendment attempting narrow scope paul antibias ordinance minnesota relied upon two categories speech expressive conduct fall outside first amendment protective sphere words incite imminent lawless action brandenburg ohio fighting words chaplinsky new hampshire minnesota erred application chaplinsky fighting words test consequently interpreted paul ordinance fashion rendered ordinance facially overbroad construing paul ordinance minnesota drew upon definition fighting words appears chaplinsky words utterance inflict injury tend incite immediate breach peace however minnesota far clear identifying injur ies inflicted expression paul sought regulate indeed minnesota emphasized tracking language ordinance ordinance censors displays one knows know create anger alarm resentment based racial ethnic gender religious bias welfare therefore understand ruled paul may constitutionally prohibit expression utterance causes anger alarm resentment fighting words cases made clear however generalized reactions sufficient strip expression constitutional protection mere fact expressive activity causes hurt feelings offense resentment render expression unprotected see eichman texas johnson hustler magazine falwell fcc pacifica foundation hess indiana cohen california street new york terminiello chicago first amendment context riminal statutes must scrutinized particular care make unlawful substantial amount constitutionally protected conduct may held facially invalid even also legitimate application houston hill citation omitted paul antibias ordinance law although ordinance reaches conduct unprotected also makes criminal expressive conduct causes hurt feelings offense resentment protected first amendment cf lewis supra ordinance therefore fatally overbroad invalid face iii today disregarded two established principles first amendment law without providing coherent replacement theory decision arid doctrinaire interpretation driven frequently irresistible impulse judges tinker first amendment decision mischievous best surely confuse lower courts join judgment folly opinion granted certiorari review following questions may local government enact ordinance prohibiting display symbols including nazi swastika burning cross public private property one knows reason know arouses anger alarm resentment others basis race color creed religion gender without violating overbreadth vagueness principles first amendment constitution constitutionality vague substantially overbroad restraint expression saved limiting construction like used save vague overbroad laws restricting application fighting words imminent lawless action pet cert contrary impression majority attempts create selective quotation petitioner briefs see ante petitioner present minnesota anything approximating novel theory majority adopts today certainly petitioner reiterat claim argument responded question bench tr oral arg previously shown restraint refrain deciding cases basis theories pressed passed upon state last resort see illinois gates given threshold issue view lacks jurisdiction decide case majority rationale cf arkansas electric cooperative arkansas pub serv certainly preliminary jurisdictional prudential concerns sufficiently weighty never granted certiorari petitioner sought review question based majority decisional theory areas limits unprotected category well unprotected character particular communications determined judicial evaluation special facts deemed constitutional significance bose consumers union assortment exceptions attaches rule belies majority claim see ante new theory truly concerned content discrimination see part infra discussing exceptions suggest course always unprotected burning cross political rally almost certainly protected expression cf brandenburg ohio context characterized direct personal insult invitation exchange fisticuffs texas johnson fighting words doctrine see part ii infra applies majority relies boos barry arguing availability alternatives undercut significantly claim legislation necessary serve asserted compelling interest ante quoting boos supra burson freeman plurality opinion boos support majority analysis boos congress already decided challenged legislation necessary pointedly deferred choice paul lawmakers made legislative choice moreover boos held challenged statute narrowly tailored less restrictive alternative available ibid analysis today turns boos substituting majority policy judgment restrictive alternative adequately serve compelling need identified paul lawmakers result statute tailored fit need identified government greater restriction fighting words even though clearly believes fighting words protected expressive content ante earlier term seven eight participating members agreed strict scrutiny analysis applied simon schuster members state crime victims struck new york son sam law required accused convicted criminal income works describing crime deposited escrow account burson dissenters complain plurality erred applying strict scrutiny objected plurality sufficiently rigorous review stevens dissenting justice scalia concurred judgment burson reasoning statute though content based constitutional reasonable regulation nonpublic forum however nothing reasoning present case suggests ban fighting words constitutional ban limited nonpublic fora taken together two opinions suggest settings political speech first amendment fullest urgent application entitled less constitutional protection fighting words eu san francisco cty democratic central quoting monitor patriot roy majority mistaken stating ban obscene works critical government fail equal protection review ban violate first amendment ante decisions police dept chicago mosley recognize first amendment principles may relevant equal protection claim challenging distinctions impact protected expression basis linking first fourteenth amendment analysis case involving unprotected expression certainly one need resort first amendment principles conclude sort improbable legislation majority hypothesizes based senseless distinctions indeed law distinguishes threatening nonthreatening speech consequences majority conflation rarely used secondary effects standard test conduct incorporating speech nonspeech elements see generally present another question fear haunt us lower courts aftermath majority opinion petitioner derive support statement virginia american booksellers statute must readily susceptible limitation rewrite state law conform constitutional requirements american booksellers state construed language dispute instance certified question state opportunity provide narrowing interpretation ibid erznoznik jacksonville case upon petitioner principally relies observed ordinance issue plain terms easily susceptible narrowing construction state courts made effort restrict scope statute challenged overbreadth grounds although first amendment protects offensive speech johnson texas require us subjected expression times settings held expression may proscribed intrudes upon captive audience frisby schultz fcc pacifica foundation expression may limited merges conduct cf meritor savings bank vinson however manner minnesota construed paul ordinance issues us case justice blackmun concurring judgment regret done case majority opinion signals one two possibilities serve precedent future cases either result disheartening first instance deciding state regulate speech causes great harm unless also regulates speech setting law logic heads seems abandon categorical approach inevitably relax level scrutiny applicable laws justice white points weakens traditional protections speech expressive activity must accorded protection protection scant simple reality never provide child pornography cigarette advertising level protection customarily granted political speech forbidden categorizing done shall reduce protection across board sad effort reach satisfying result case willing weaken first amendment protections second instance possibility case significantly alter first amendment jurisprudence instead regarded aberration case manipulated doctrine strike ordinance whose premise opposed namely racial threats verbal assaults greater harm fighting words fear distracted proper mission temptation decide issue politically correct speech cultural diversity neither presented meaning today opinion perhaps even regrettable see first amendment values compromised law prohibits hoodlums driving minorities homes burning crosses lawns see great harm preventing people saint paul specifically punishing fighting words prejudice community concur judgment however agree justice white particular ordinance reaches beyond fighting words speech protected first amendment justice stevens justice white justice blackmun join part concurring judgment conduct creates special risks causes special harms may prohibited special rules lighting fire near ammunition dump gasoline storage tank especially dangerous behavior may punished severely burning trash vacant lot threatening someone race religious beliefs may cause particularly severe trauma touch riot threatening high public official may cause substantial social disruption threats may punished severely threats someone based say support particular athletic team legitimate reasonable neutral justifications special rules case involves constitutionality one ordinance regulated conduct communicative content message racial religious gender hostility ordinance raises two quite different first amendment questions ordinance overbroad prohibits much speech underbroad prohibit enough speech answering questions colleagues today wrestle two broad principles first certain categories expression including fighting words within area constitutionally protected speech ante white concurring judgment second regulations expression presumptively invalid ante majority opinion although past opinions repeated maxims quite rightly adhered neither absolutism suggested colleagues thus agree paul ordinance unconstitutionally overbroad reasons stated part ii justice white opinion write separately suggest allure absolute principles skewed analysis majority justice white opinions fifty years ago articulated categorical approach first amendment jurisprudence certain narrowly limited classes speech prevention punishment never thought raise constitutional problem well observed utterances essential part exposition ideas slight social value step truth benefit may derived clearly outweighed social interest order morality chaplinsky new hampshire today revises categorical approach rules certain categories expression unprotected rather certain elements expression wholly proscribable expressive act like chemical compound consists one element although act may regulated contains proscribable element may regulated basis another nonproscribable element also contains thus obscene antigovernment speech may regulated obscene antigovernment ante revision categorical approach allows assume paul ordinance proscribes fighting words time concluding ordinance invalid imposes regulation expressive activity initial matter revision categorical approach seems something adventure doctrinal wonderland concept obscene antigovernment speech fantastical category obscene narrow obscene expression must found trier fact appea prurient interest depic describ patently offensive way sexual conduct taken whole lac serious literary artistic political scientific value miller california emphasis added obscene antigovernment speech contradiction terms expression antigovernment lac serious political value obscene attempts bolster argument likening novel analysis applied restrictions time place manner expression expressive conduct true loud speech favor republican party regulated loud true public burning american flag regulated involves public burning involves flag analogies inapposite examples two elements loudness orientation coexist case obscene antigovernment speech however presence one element obscenity definition means absence mind unwise unsound craft new doctrine based highly speculative hypotheticals however even troubled second step analysis namely conclusion paul ordinance unconstitutional regulation speech drawing broadly worded dicta establishes ban regulations expression holds first amendment prohibits regulation fighting words subject matter thus rejects nature categorical approach ante promptly embraces absolutism within particular proscribable category expression holds government must either proscribe speech speech aspect ruling fundamentally misunderstands role constitutional status regulations speech conflicts nature first amendment jurisprudence disrupts principles first amendment law although occasion declared regulations speech never permitted police dept chicago mosley claims overstated indeed mosley indicated chicago selective proscription nonlabor picketing per se unconstitutional rather upheld city demonstrated nonlabor picketing clearly disruptive labor picketing contrary broad dicta mosley elsewhere decisions demonstrate distinctions far presumptively invalid inevitable indispensable aspect coherent understanding first amendment true every level first amendment law broadest terms entire first amendment jurisprudence creates regime based content speech scope first amendment determined content expressive activity although first amendment broadly protects speech protect right fix prices breach contracts make false warranties place bets bookies threaten extort schauer categories first amendment play three acts whether agreement among competitors violation sherman act protected activity doctrine hinges upon content agreement similarly line permissible advocacy impermissible incitation crime violence depends merely setting speech occurs also exactly speaker say young american mini theatres plurality opinion see also musser utah rutledge dissenting likewise whether speech falls within one categories unprotected proscribable expression determined part content whether magazine obscene gesture fighting word photograph child pornography determined part content even within categories protected expression first amendment status speech fixed content new york times sullivan dun bradstreet greenmoss builders establish level protection given speech depends upon subject matter speech public officials matters public concern receives greater protection speech topics therefore scarcely said regulation expressive activity predicated content much first amendment jurisprudence premised assumption content makes difference consistent general premise frequently upheld regulations speech example young american mini theatres upheld zoning ordinances regulated movie theaters based content films shown fcc pacifica foundation plurality opinion upheld restriction broadcast specific indecent words lehman shaker heights plurality opinion upheld city law permitted commercial advertising prohibited political advertising city buses broadrick oklahoma upheld state law restricted speech state employees concerned partisan political matters long recognized power federal trade commission regulate misleading advertising labeling see jacob siegel ftc national labor relations board power regulate employer speech basis content see nlrb gissel packing also beyond question government may choose limit advertisements cigarettes see cigars choose regulate airline advertising see morales trans world airlines bus advertising choose monitor solicitation lawyers see ohralik ohio state bar doctors cases involved selective regulation speech based content precisely sort regulation invalidates today selective regulations unavoidably opinion presumptively invalid many decisions examples demonstrate prohibition regulations nearly total mosley dictum suggests disregarding vast body case law today goes beyond even overstatement mosley applies prohibition regulation speech today considered wholly unprotected first amendment namely fighting words new absolutism prohibition regulations severely contorts fabric settled first amendment law first amendment decisions created rough hierarchy constitutional protection speech core political speech occupies highest protected position commercial speech nonobscene sexually explicit speech regarded sort expression obscenity fighting words receive least protection assuming correct last class speech wholly unprotected certainly follow fighting words obscenity receive sort protection afforded core political speech yet ruling proscribable speech regulated based subject matter perversely gives fighting words greater protection afforded commercial speech congress prohibit false advertising directed airline passengers without also prohibiting false advertising directed bus passengers city prohibit political advertisements buses allowing advertisements ironic hold city regulate fighting words based race color creed religion gender leaving unregulated fighting words based union membership homosexuality ante today turns first amendment law head communication entirely unprotected still wholly proscribed entitled greater protection commercial speech possibly greater protection core political speech see burson freeman perhaps recognizes perversities quickly offers ad hoc limitations newly extended prohibition regulations first regulation valid hen content discrimination based upon reason entire class speech proscribable pivotal passage writes federal government criminalize threats violence directed president see since reasons threats violence outside first amendment protecting individuals fear violence disruption fear engenders possibility threatened violence occur special force applied president ante precisely reasoning however compels conclusion paul ordinance constitutional congress may determine threats president entail severe consequences threats paul city council may determine threats based target race religion gender cause severe harm target society threats latter judgment harms caused racial religious invective qualitatively different caused fighting words seems eminently reasonable realistic next recognizes state may regulate advertising one industry another risk fraud one characteristics justifies depriving commercial speech full first amendment protection regulated industry greater industries reasoning demonstrates constitutionality paul ordinance ne characteristics justifies constitutional status fighting words words utterance inflict injury tend incite immediate breach peace chaplinsky certainly legislature may determine risk fraud greater legal trade medical trade may determine risk injury breach peace created threats greater created threats similarly impossible reconcile analysis paul ordinance recognition prohibition fighting words directed certain persons groups facially valid ante emphasis deleted selective proscription unprotected expression designed protect certain persons groups example law proscribing threats directed elderly constitutional based legitimate determination harm created regulated expression differs created unregulated expression elderly severely injured threats nonelderly selective protection different law prohibiting minors minors obtaining obscene publications see ginsberg new york paul determined reasonably judgment injuries based race color creed religion gender qualitatively different severe injuries based characteristics whether selective proscription proscribable speech defined protected target certain persons groups basis harm injuries based race color creed religion gender makes constitutional difference matters whether legislature selection based legitimate neutral reasonable distinction sum central premise ruling regulations presumptively invalid simplistic appeal lacks support first amendment jurisprudence make matters worse today extends overstated claim reach categories hitherto unprotected speech wreaks havoc area settled law finally although recognizes exceptions new principle exceptions undermine conclusion paul ordinance unconstitutional stated directly majority position withstand scrutiny ii although agree much justice white analysis join part opinion reservations categorical approach first amendment concerns noted occasions see new york ferber opinion concurring judgment lead find justice white response analysis unsatisfying admittedly categorical approach first amendment appeal either expression protected categories create safe harbors governments speakers alike approach sacrifices subtlety clarity convinced ultimately unsound initial matter concept categories fits poorly complex reality expression dividing lines first amendment law straight unwavering efforts categorization inevitably give rise fuzzy boundaries definitions obscenity see marks stevens concurring part dissenting part public forum see postal service council greenburgh civic brennan concurring judgment marshall dissenting stevens dissenting debating definition public forum illustrate well quest doctrinal certainty definition categories subcategories opinion destined fail moreover categorical approach take seriously importance context meaning expression legitimacy regulation determined context whether example picture sentence obscene judged abstract rather context setting use audience similarly although legislatures may freely regulate nonobscene child pornography pornography part serious work art documentary behavioral problems medical psychiatric teaching device may entitled constitutional protection question whether specific act communication protected first amendment always requires consideration content context ferber stevens concurring judgment see also smith stevens dissenting categorical approach sweeps broadly declares expression beyond protection first amendment perhaps sensing limits approach applied analysis less categorically doctrinal statements suggest recognized intermediate categories speech example indecent nonobscene speech commercial speech geographic categories speech public fora limited public fora nonpublic fora entitled varying levels protection also stringently delimited categories unprotected speech declared ibelous utterances within area constitutionally protected speech beauharnais illinois rulings new york times sullivan gertz robert welch dun bradstreet greenmoss builders substantially qualified broad claim similarly consistently construed fighting words exception set forth chaplinsky narrowly see houston hill lewis new orleans cohen california case commercial speech ruling constitution imposes restraint government regulation respects purely commercial advertising valentine chrestensen expressly repudiated virginia bd pharmacy virginia citizens consumer council short history categorical approach largely history narrowing categories unprotected speech evolution believe indicates categorical approach unworkable quest absolute categories protected unprotected speech ultimately futile analysis faults limits approach persuades categorical approach presented part justice white opinion adequate response novel underbreadth analysis sets forth today iii foregoing suggests disagree part justice white analysis constitutionality paul ordinance unlike believe regulations equally infirm presumptively invalid unlike justice white believe fighting words wholly unprotected first amendment contrary believe decisions establish complex subtle analysis one considers content context regulated speech nature scope restriction speech applying analysis assuming arguendo paul ordinance overbroad conclude selective subject matter regulation proscribable speech constitutional regulations alike decisions clearly recognize restrictions raise constitutional questions others although analysis regulations reduced simple formula considered number factors determining validity regulations first suggested scope protection provided expressive activity depends part upon content character long recognized government regulates political speech expression editorial opinion matters public importance fcc league women voters first amendment protectio zenith meyer grant comparison recognized commercial speech receives limited form first amendment protection posadas de puerto rico associates tourism puerto rico society interest protecting sexually explicit films wholly different lesser magnitude interest untrammeled political debate young american mini theatres see also fcc pacifica foundation character expressive activity also weighs consideration constitutional status frequently noted government generally freer hand restricting expressive conduct restricting written spoken word texas johnson see also protection afforded expression turns well context regulated speech noted example ny assessment precise scope employer expression course must made context labor relations setting must take account economic dependence employees employers nlrb gissel packing similarly distinctive character university environment see widmar vincent stevens concurring judgment secondary school environment see hazelwood school dist kuhlmeier influences first amendment analysis true presence audience one matter necessity choice lehman shaker heights citation omitted perhaps familiar embodiment relevance context fora jurisprudence differentiating levels protection afforded speech different locations nature contested restriction speech also informs evaluation constitutionality thus example ny system prior restraints expression comes bearing heavy presumption constitutional validity bantam books sullivan particularly matter regulations implicitly distinguished restrictions expression based subject matter restrictions based viewpoint indicating latter particularly pernicious bedrock principle underlying first amendment government may prohibit expression idea simply society finds idea offensive disagreeable texas johnson viewpoint discrimination censorship purest form perry ed assn perry local educators brennan dissenting requires particular scrutiny part regulation often indicates legislative effort skew public debate issue see schacht especially legislature suppression speech suggests attempt give one side debatable public question advantage expressing views people first amendment plainly offended first nat bank boston bellotti thus although regulation face regulates speech subject matter may instances effectively suppress particular viewpoints see consolidated edison public serv stevens concurring judgment general restrictions expression require greater scrutiny restrictions finally considering validity regulations also looked broadly scope restrictions example young american mini theatres found significant fact ultimately stake nothing limitation place adult films may exhibited similarly fcc pacifica foundation emphasized two dimensions limited scope fcc ruling first ruling concerned broadcast material presents particular problems confronts citizen privacy home second ruling complete ban use selected offensive words rather merely limitation times speech broadcast factors play role evaluation regulations expression analysis conflated two dimensions whatever allure absolute doctrines simple declare expression protected unprotected proclaim regulation content based content neutral applying analysis paul ordinance assume arguendo ordinance regulates fighting words therefore overbroad looking content character regulated activity two things clear first hypothesis ordinance bars speech namely fighting words definition expression constitutes essential part exposition ideas slight social value step truth benefit may derived clearly outweighed social interest order morality chaplinsky second ordinance regulates expressive conduct rather written spoken word texas johnson looking context regulated activity significant statute hypothesis regulates fighting words whether words fighting words determined part context fighting words words merely cause offense fighting words must directed individuals utterance inflict injury hypothesis paul ordinance restricts speech confrontational potentially violent situations case hand illustrative cross burning case directed single family trapped home nothing crude form physical intimidation cross burning sends message racial hostility automatically endow complete constitutional protection significantly paul ordinance regulates speech basis subject matter viewpoint expressed rather basis harm speech causes regard fundamentally misreads paul ordinance describes paul ordinance regulating expression addressed one several specified disfavored topics ante emphasis supplied policing disfavored subjects ibid emphasis supplied prohibit ing speech solely basis subjects speech addresses ante emphasis supplied contrary suggestion ordinance regulates subcategory expression causes injuries based race color creed religion gender subcategory involves discussions concern characteristics ordinance construed criminalizes expression one knows utterance inflicts injury others basis race color creed religion gender regard ordinance resembles child pornography law issue ferber effect singled child pornography publications caused far greater harms pornography involving adults moreover even paul ordinance regulate fighting words based subject matter regulation opinion constitutional noted regulations commercial speech widespread largely unproblematic long recognized subject matter regulations generally raise concerns government censorship distortion public discourse presented viewpoint regulations thus upholding subject matter regulations carefully noted discrimination implicated see young american mini theatres emphasizing need absolute neutrality government observing contested statute animated hostility point view theatres fcc pacifica foundation stressing government must remain neutral marketplace ideas see also fcc league women voters cal stevens dissenting metromedia san diego stevens dissenting part indeed subject matter restrictions functional necessity contemporary governance first amendment require regulate problems exist burson freeman contrary suggestion majority paul ordinance regulate expression based viewpoint contends ordinance requires proponents racial intolerance follow marquis queensberry rules allowing advocates racial tolerance fight freestyle law thing writes one hold sign saying example bigots misbegotten papists insult provoke violence basis religion ante paul ordinance evenhanded battle advocates tolerance advocates intolerance ordinance prevent either side hurling fighting words basis conflicting ideas bar sides hurling words basis target race color creed religion gender extend pugilistic metaphor paul ordinance simply bans punches belt either party therefore favor one side debate finally noteworthy paul ordinance construed today quite narrow paul ordinance ban hate speech ban say cross burnings swastika displays rather bans subcategory already narrow category fighting words limited ordinance leaves open protected vast range expression subjects racial religious gender equality construed today ordinance certainly rais specter government may effectively drive certain ideas viewpoints marketplace ante petitioner free burn cross announce rally express views racial supremacy may private property public land day night long burning threatening directed individual execution inflict injury limited proscription scarcely offends first amendment sum paul ordinance construed regulates expressive activity wholly proscribable basis viewpoint rather recognition different harms caused activity taken together several considerations persuade paul ordinance unconstitutional regulation speech thus ordinance overbroad vote uphold disputes characterization crafted two exceptions one certain media markets content discrimination based upon reason entire class speech issue proscribable ante exceptions best ill defined tell us whether respect former fighting words cross burning proscribed certain neighborhoods threat violence particularly severe whether respect second category fighting words create particular risk harm race riot proscribable hypothetical illusory category two exceptions persuades either description analysis accurate fact mean much says opinion see mine workers pennington eastern railroad presidents conference noerr motor freight see also packer utah brandeis upholding statute prohibited advertisement cigarettes billboards streetcar placards prohibition regulations applies differently context proscribable speech context speech ante analysis belies claim strikes paul ordinance regulates fighting words based subject matter despite fact demonstrated long upheld regulations commercial speech based subject matter inapt prohibiting regulation fighting words based subject matter provides protection fighting words currently provided core political speech word justice holmes noted crystal transparent unchanged skin living thought may vary greatly color content according circumstances time used towne eisner see also jacobellis ohio warren dissenting cf chase stevens dissenting arguing defendant reasons religious belief refused rise stand trial judge entered courtroom subject contempt proceedings present courtroom matter choice although sometimes suggested regulations equally problematic see consolidated edison public serv decisions belie claims makes much paul description ordinance regulating message ante always however paul argument must read context finally ask reflect content expressive conduct represented burning cross less first step act racial violence unfortunately still equivalent waving knife thrust pointing gun fired lighting match arson hanging noose lynching political statement even cowardly statement hatred first step act assault protected holding gun victim head perhaps ultimate expression fighting words app brief petitioner contends distinction wordplay reasoning hat makes harms caused threats distinct harms produced fighting words fact former caused distinctive idea ante emphasis added way concludes regulating speech based injury causes different regulating speech based subject matter analysis fundamentally miscomprehends role race color creed religion gender contemporary american society one need look recent social unrest nation cities see threats may cause harm society individuals threats statute prohibiting threats president justifiable place president social political order statute prohibiting threats justifiable place race social political order although regrettable race occupies place incendiary issue nation matures beyond condition laws paul ordinance remain reasonable justifiable cf fcc league women voters stevens dissenting case regulation applies defined class licensees represent heterogeneous points view simply sensible basis considering regulation viewpoint restriction condemn applies equally station owners shades opinion