Vicious Verbal Attack on Blaze TV's Bolling

In a recent episode of "This Is America" The Rich Valdes Podcast we discussed an act "fighting words." Technically "fighting words" is an unprotected category of speech and legal doctrine where free speech is not advanced, but rather a stream of profanities with little or no intellectual substance is used—two left-wing activists targeted Hayden Williams, again, and former Fox News Host, Eric Bolling.

Bolling now the Chief Political Anchor for Blaze TV tragically lost his son in an accidental overdose that claimed his life a year and a half ago. As the two men were minding their own business conversing with one another, a dissenter of their politics approached them and provoked them with vile insults about Bolling's deceased son. Rightfully angered, Bolling confronted the man outside capturing the affront on cellphone video.

It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances...

The verbal assaulter had an accomplice that taunted Bolling by sporting a cynical smile while shoving his cellphone in Bolling's face. While some might argue that this is permissible under the First Amendment, others could argue that it violates several of the 10 commandments. It's likely not protected speech because it invited conflict.

Eric Confronts Man After He Makes Despicable Comments About His Late Son

On March 20, 2019, Eric Bolling was sitting with some friends at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., when a man walked by his table and said — loud enough for them to hear — that Eric’s son "killed himself because he was embarrassed by his dad.” Eric followed the hate-fueled man out of the hotel and started filming what came next.

Posted by America with Eric Bolling on Thursday, March 21, 2019

As the Freedom Institute points out the US Supreme Court opined on "fighting words" in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, writing::  "It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention, and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that 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 may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.”

Despite seemingly being in the clear from a legal perspective Bolling took the high road and exercised civility.  Listen to the full podcast here:

h/t: Freedom Institute