What constitutes 'fighting words' according to Gooding v. Wilson?

The definition of 'fighting words' as established in the Supreme Court case Gooding v. Wilson revolves around the intent and effect of the spoken words. The correct response highlights that these are words which provoke an immediate violent response from the listener, sufficiently enough to breach the peace. This standard is grounded in the understanding that such speech is not protected under the First Amendment due to its potential to incite violence and disorder.

'Fighting words' are characterized by their nature—specifically, they must be highly provocative and directed at an individual, which is likely to lead to an immediate confrontation. The focus is on the reaction these words elicit, which distinguishes them from other types of speech.

The other choices may touch on aspects of verbally harmful or inflammatory communication, but they do not capture the specific legal definition set forth by the Court. For example, while words used in a derogatory manner might be offensive, they do not necessarily meet the threshold of inciting an immediate violent response. Similarly, words inciting public disturbance encompass a broader category of speech that may not directly target an individual. Words spoken under duress introduce a context that dilutes the idea of intent and provocation, which is central to the concept of fighting words.