The United States Supreme Court ruled (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - 1942) that: "No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation."

That, in essence, was the beginning of the "Fighting Words Doctrine," and such words are not protected by the First Amendment and ARE subject to interpretation in relationship to freedom of speech.

The ruling nearly 60 years ago also indicated that the phrases "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" were "epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace."

Suffice to say today that water has swiftly flowed under, over and torn apart the bridge, or standard, for fighting words. People now get away with much more in our seemingly civilized society. No longer are we, as a group of people, expected to be polite and kind to one another. Insulting or "fighting words" are uttered with regularity. Sometimes we are lewd, obscene, profane and even libelous. Other times we are simply mean, condescending or thoughtless in the words we write and utter.

Fighting words were defined much too tightly so many years ago. Thankfully we are a freer people when it comes to speech. But the basis for the decision was well grounded: "... such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Several people joined the online discussion last week after a brief story about a 14-year-old Bismarck girl who was killed in a car accident near Menoken.

The majority who commented was respectful and expressed sorrow and support. That has to count as something of a blessing and positive reaction to a tragedy. A few wanted to discuss the appropriateness of North Dakota's age law for driver licensing, but even most of those comments were sensitive and respectful. Unfortunately, a limited number of people who commented should have thought before they typed their utterances because they didn't even have "slight social value."

Intended or not, they offended some readers. Even though the comments did not rise to the level of fighting words, they were hurtful. The hurt some felt led them to suggest the Tribune was responsible and insensitive for providing such a forum. A few asked the newspaper to end the discussion.

I didn't think it appropriate, even after one of the supporters to end the dialog penned this: "Mr. Irby, be a man and disable this forum."

In days gone by, questioning manhood would have been fighting words. But I learned years ago that bullying and inuendo is best ignored, when possible.

Another angry person suggested subscribers stop taking the newspaper. One charged the Tribune with extreme insensitivity and being uncompassionate and using extremely poor judgment, concluding by suggesting the newspaper didn't have a "clue whatsoever of its responsibility to treat human beings with respect and dignity."

Some called others stupid, heartless creeps and fools.

I did what I thought was right, reminding those posting comments that name calling must immediately end, and that comments needed to be respectful; otherwise, the Tribune would end discussion. While that response didn't satisfy everyone, it seemed to have a positive effect on the comments that followed.

Maybe I was right, maybe wrong. Newspapers are faced with difficult decisions every day and those we make are subject to critique. But never doubt that we strive to make the right decisions balancing sensitivity and freedom of speech - as well as many other factors like respect and dignity - and not with malice or disregard for others. We understand there is great responsibility that comes with freedom and we seek to be a responsible community institution.

While this debate is worth having, here's the priority that should provide context: Let none of us forget the tragic loss of life. May we search our souls for respect and understanding and keep those involved in our thoughts and prayers.

(You can reach Editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@bismarcktribune.com)