도발적 언사 원칙(fighting words doctrine)에 대한 헌법적 고찰

This study includes the latest discussion on the constitutional meaning and criteria of fighting words. Although the fighting words doctrine in the United States is evaluated to have been reduced, it is not denied, and it can be seen that it is still actively applied in each state court. In particular, the fighting words doctrine is closely related to the criterion for judging hate speech, which has recently been actively discussed in Korea. It is expected to be used as a criterion for the application of the so-called 'Criminal Contempt against Police Officers'. In this study, representative US precedents on the fighting words doctrine were reviewed and the core significance of the case was reviewed. In addition, the judgment criteria presented by scholars in the US and especially David L. Hudson, Jr. Putting these together, the criteria for the fighting words doctrine are first, that the method of delivery is directed at a specific person, and second, there is a possibility of causing a violent reaction in nature, especially personal abusive language. Third, the possibility of actual violation - ① physical proximity·possibility of retaliation·immediacy of violent response, ② occupational characteristics of the recipient, ③ aggressive behavior·volume·repetition·racial slurs etc. Although there have been problems with the arrest of criminals in the act of contempt against police officers or the abuse of complaints in Korea since around 2014. It is different from provocative language in that the offense of insult in the Republic of Korea protects external honor as a legal interest. However, in light of the US precedent, it is necessary to reevaluate whether police officers in Korea have a lower risk of lowering their social evaluation compared to the general public when they hear abusive language. In addition, there is a high need to refer to US precedents in developing detailed criteria for strictly applying the crime of contempt against police officers.