Which of the following is an example of fighting words that lack First Amendment protection?

Fighting words are defined as speech that is intended to incite immediate violence or an aggressive reaction from the person to whom the words are directed. This concept, established by the Supreme Court, highlights that certain forms of speech can be regulated without violating the First Amendment when they directly provoke a violent response.

The choice that indicates words intended to incite physical retaliation fits this definition, as these words are crafted to provoke immediate violent action from someone, thus lacking constitutional protection. This type of speech goes beyond mere expression and crosses into the territory of incitement to violence, which is not protected.

In contrast, criticism of a public official, political humor or satire, and expressions of personal opinion typically involve discourse that is fundamental to democratic engagement and freedom of expression. These forms of communication, even if they may be provocative or contentious, do not inherently seek to incite violence and thus are generally protected under the First Amendment.