•should the “fighting words” doctrine of chaplinsky v. new hampshire be reinvigorated and applied on a broader scale to deny first amendment protection to volatile speech like that expressed in places like charlottesville, virginia, in august of 2017? why or why not?

Walter Chaplinsky was taken into custody by a police officer who wanted to prevent further public disturbance. While being taken to the police station, he proceeded to insult the police officer after receiving equal treatment from the crowd who was allegedly attacking him. The court denied him First Amendment because it considered that the insults produced by Chaplinsky did not contribute to any "expression of ideas".

Despite considering that it would be a correct action to apply this sort of action on a broader scale, it would certainly lead to the emergence of numerous court cases similar to this one. This would mean considerable additional workload to the courts, hindering the entity's efficiency.  

it is loom ps i took the test

    racial conflict and discrimination has existed ever since man learned to kill with rocks and bones. these conflicts arose from disputes between territory, power, wealth, religion, or simple difference. some of the most infamous racial disputes include slavery, the holocaust, and the civil rights movement.

    these listed disputes often resulted in casualties from all sides. riots, wars, imprisonment, and lynching are all commonly associated with racial conflict on severe levels.

      however, racism is an improving issue in recent decades. people are being more accepting and welcoming of diverse populations. though, the world isn't perfect and it will take much more time, if ever, until the world is rid of racism.