Historically, § 13A-11-8 has been narrowly interpreted to apply only to those actions that, depending on the circumstances and context, constitute "fighting words." Miller v. City of Fairhope, 855 So.2d 1139 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003) (reference to victim as "bitch" did not support conviction under harassment statute, which required use of abusive or obscene language that could be construed as "fighting words"); Owens v. State, 848 So.2d 279 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002) (reference to victim's terminally ill family member as a "churchgoing hypocrite" soon going to "bust the gate of hell wide-open" did not constitute fighting words); Conkle v. State, 677 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); R.I.T. v. State, 675 So.2d 97 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); B.E.S. v. State, 629 So.2d 761 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) (direction to juvenile victim during private quarrel "to shut the f up" did not constitute fighting words). "[Fighting words] are words that by their very utterance provoke a swift physical retaliation and incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Historically, this statute has been narrowly interpreted to apply only to those actions that, depending on the circumstances and context, constitute "fighting words." Miller v. City of Fairhope, [Ms. CR-02-0235, February 28, 2003] 855 So.2d 1139 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). See also Conkle v. State, 677 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); R.I.T. v. State, 675 So.2d 97 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); B.E.S. v. State, 629 So.2d 761 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993).