State v. Liebenguth

Summary

The court held that the defendant's racially abusive remarks, considered in the context of an escalating confrontation with an African-American parking officer, were unprotected fighting words likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Applying de novo review to the constitutional question while accepting subsidiary factual findings, the court concluded that the First Amendment did not bar use of the remarks to support the breach-of-peace conviction. The judgment was reversed in part and the case was remanded with direction to affirm that conviction.