State v. Baccala

Summary

The court held that the defendant's conviction for breach of the peace based solely on profane insults violated the First Amendment because the speech was not likely to provoke an imminent violent response from the addressee under the circumstances. Applying a contextual fighting-words analysis, the court emphasized the manager's prior awareness of the defendant's conduct, her professional role, her control over the premises, and her actual nonviolent response. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for entry of an acquittal.