Editing Fighting words (section)

==Australia==
{{anchor|Crimes that prohibit offensive language in Australia}}
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression, but the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression |title=Freedom of information, opinion and expression &#124; Australian Human Rights Commission |publisher=Humanrights.gov.au |access-date=2017-06-30}}</ref>

In ''[[Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills]]'',<ref name="News v Wills"/> and ''[[Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth]]'',<ref name="AC TV v Cth" /> the majority of the High Court held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an incident of the system of representative government established by the Constitution. This was reaffirmed in ''Unions NSW v New South Wales'' [2013] HCA 58.<ref name="Unions NSW v NSW">{{cite AustLII|HCA|58|2013|litigants=Unions NSW v New South Wales |parallelcite=(2013) 252 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 530 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

In 2004, the High Court considered the meaning of a statutory offence of using insulting words in a public place.<ref>''Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931'' (Qld) s7(1)(d).</ref> Justices [[William Gummow|Gummow]] and [[Kenneth Hayne|Hayne]] held that in the context of the section, '"abusive" and "insulting" should be understood as those words which, in the circumstances in which they are used, are so hurtful as either they are intended to, or they are reasonably likely to provoke unlawful physical retaliation'.{{r|Coleman v Power|p=77|q=paragraph 193 per Gummow and Hayne JJ.}} [[Michael Kirby (judge)|Judge Michael Kirby]] employed similar reasoning.{{r|Coleman v Power|p=87|q=paragraph 226 per Kirby J.}} [[Chief Justice of Australia|Chief Justice]] [[Murray Gleeson|Gleeson]] took a slightly different approach to the construction of the section, finding that:

<blockquote>It is open to parliament to form the view that threatening, abusive or insulting speech and behaviour may in some circumstances constitute a serious interference with public order, even where there is no intention, and no realistic possibility, that the person threatened, abused or insulted, or some third person, might respond in such a manner that a breach of the peace will occur.{{r|Coleman v Power|p=24|q=paragraph 9 per Gleeson CJ.}}</blockquote>

Greenawalt argues that in the First Amendment context, the application of one part of the original Chaplinsky formula ('words likely to cause an average addressee to fight')<ref name=Chaplinsky /> is problematic in important respects:

<blockquote>The first ambiguity concerns the persons to be counted among potential addressees: everyone, only people to whom a phrase really 'applies', or all those likely to be angered by having the label applied to them? Someone of French origin reacts differently to being called a 'Polack' than someone of Polish origin. ... Another ambiguity is how an 'average addressee' is to be conceived ... [And], [c]an the same remark be punishable if directed at the one person able to respond and constitutionally protected if directed at people not able to match the speaker physically?<ref>Kent Greenawalt, 'Insults and Epithets: Are They Protected Speech?' (1990) 42 Rutgers Law Review 287, 296–7.</ref></blockquote>

===Offensive language that is considered criminal in Australia===
A number of criminal laws in Australia prohibit the use of offensive, obscene, abusive, insulting or indecent language in a public place.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=162515219539617;res=IELHSS |title='Weeds of our own making': Language ideologies, swearing and the criminal law |last=Methven |first=Elyse |date=2016|volume=34|issue=2|journal=Law in Context|pages=117–130 [117]|ssrn=2996921}}</ref> One such example is section 4A of the ''Summary Offences Act'' 1988 (NSW), which prohibits the use of offensive language in, near or within hearing from a public place or school.<ref>''Summary Offences Act'' 1988 (NSW) {{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1988/25/part2/div1/sec4a|title=s4A Offenscive language |website=NSW Legislation}}</ref> The penalty for using offensive, indecent or obscene language in Australia ranges from a small fine (for example, $660 in NSW) to up to 6 months imprisonment.

Police in a number of Australian states and territories also have the power to issue on-the-spot fines (infringement notices) for offensive language.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRS/2014/13.html |last=Methven |first=Elyse |title='A Very Expensive Lesson': Counting the Costs of Penalty Notices for Anti-social Behaviour|journal=University of Technology Sydney Law Research Series |year=2014 }} (2014) 26(2) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 249. Retrieved 30 June 2017.</ref> Police commonly use these offences to target four-letter words (such as ''[[cunt]]'', or ''[[fuck]]'', and their derivatives) uttered towards them, or in their presence.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRS/2012/10.html |last=Methven |first=Elyse |title=Dirty words? Challenging the assumptions that underpin offensive language crimes|journal=University of Technology Sydney Law Research Series |year=2012 }} [2012] University of Technology Sydney Law Research Series 10. Retrieved 30 June 2017.</ref>