In Re Nickolas S.
245 P.3d 446
Ariz.2011Background
- Nickolas S. was adjudicated delinquent for two counts under A.R.S. § 15-507 for abusing a teacher with speech on school grounds.
- First incident: in an on-campus suspension classroom Nickolas said “bitch” under his breath after being asked for his cell phone.
- Second incident: two days later Nickolas yelled profanities at the same teacher, disrupting class and hallway conduct.
- Nickolas received a ten-day suspension; adjudication argued as protected First Amendment speech.
- Court of Appeals vacated the first count but affirmed the second, limiting § 15-507 to fighting words in pure-speech cases.
- Arizona Supreme Court held the speech in both incidents did not constitute fighting words and vacated both adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 15-507 apply to pure speech as fighting words? | Nickolas S. contends the statute is overbroad for pure speech. | State argues | Not applicable; opinion assumes overbreadth but resolves on fighting-words analysis |
| Are Nickolas's words fighting words under the federal standard? | Words insufficient to provoke violent reaction to a teacher. | Statutory reach could include provocative profanity. | No; words not inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction by the addressee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1942) (fighting words category narrowly limited to direct, personal insult likely to provoke breach of peace)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1971) (fighting-words test includes context and addressee; jacket profanity not fighting words)
- Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1972) (statutes must be narrowly drawn to target unprotected speech)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (contextual analysis of speech; not all provocative speech is fighting words)
- Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1974) (consideration of addressee characteristics in evaluating fighting words)
- City of Seattle v. Camby, 701 P.2d 499 (Wash. 1985) (three-step framework for fighting-words analysis)
- In re Louise C., 197 Ariz. 84 (Ariz. App. 1999) (contextual assessment of likelihood of violence in school setting)
- In re John M., 36 P.3d 772 (Ariz. App. 2001) (racial slurs can be fighting words when likely to provoke violence)
- In re Paul M., 7 P.3d 131 (Ariz. App. 2000) (profane direction toward teacher may constitute abuse under § 15-507)
- State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873 (Ariz. 2006) (narrow construction principles in constitutional analysis)