Obscene Incitement and Clear and Present Danger:
The Need For Anti-Street Harassment Laws
Should there be a law protecting women from street harassment? Many women believe so.
Street harassment falls under the limitations set by the Supreme Court on first ammendment freedom of speech including obscenities, incitement, and clear and present danger. These limits are spelled out by the Supreme Court as "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words.'" (Supreme Court). As defined by the Supreme Court fighting words are, "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (Supreme Court). These limitations were set in cases such as Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Miller v. California to name a few.
Unfortunately, although shown to increase violence against women, street harassment is not taken seriously by law enforcement as noted in an article entitled, “Legal Analysis” written by an unnamed representative of the Hollaback! network. The article states, “...Laws already on the books that prohibit intimidation and harassment are rarely interpreted to address the harms of street harassment experienced by women.” (Hollaback!).
For this reason laws needs to be set in place to specifically address the issue of street harassment towards women. As with any law, predefined limiting principles would need to be set in order to prevent abuse. Street harassment should be defined as sexually explicit, demeaning, dehumanizing, and/or aggressive language directed at individuals including minors and adults who, in turn, feel threatened or intimidated and may be in danger of resulting violence physically and/or sexually.
http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/legal/legal-analysis/
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/l04-limitsfreedomspeech.htm
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky
