First Amendment Law Case Study

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Under Arizona and First Amendment law, did the trial court correctly find that a comedian’s hateful rhetoric constituted fighting words and was thus not protected speech when at a comedy show he: (1) made derogatory references in regards to a politician’s heritage; (2) called for the killing of the politician’s family; (3) mentioned the politician’s name; and (4) repeated his language by posting on the politician’s social media pages?
2. Did the trial court correctly find that the comedian’s speech was a “true threat” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment when he: (1) called for the beating of a politician; (2) lit a campaign poster on fire depicting the politician; and (3) caused the severe emotional distress of

Fighting words must: (1) have an addressee; (2) contain personally abusive language, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction when addressed to ordinary individuals; and (3) be likely to incite violent reaction in the addressee, given the context. In re Nickolas S., 245 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2011). Courts have generally limited fighting words to face-to-face interactions. Citizen Publ’g Co. v. Miller, 115 P.3d 107 (Ariz. 2005). Mullen addressed the Kidds in his speech by naming Raymond directly and “tagging” him on social media. Although Mullen did not address the Kidds in a typical face-to-face setting, as the Kidds were not attending his show, Mullen’s posts on social media were even more invasive than an in-person message. Society pressurizes individuals to use social media to have real-time interactions by sharing photos and messages, but if someone abuses that privilege through cyber-bullying, it can damage other aspects of lives. The language was abusive, and individuals would response violently to threats on their