Final answer:
The following statement " Verbal provocation (fighting words) has been deemed a legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter" is true
Step-by-step explanation:
Legal standards for what constitutes adequate provocation vary, but traditionally, mere words, no matter how insulting, are not considered sufficient to provoke a killing from manslaughter to voluntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is typically characterized by a killing that occurs in the 'heat of passion', resulting from provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. Physical attacks or circumstances that suggest self-defense may reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter, as argued by Adams when he mentioned provocation from being attacked with blows of any sort.
Legal precedent, such as Proffitt v. Florida, emphasizes a careful weighing of factors. For instance, in the death penalty context, Florida's statute requires a comparison of aggravating factors to mitigating factors to impose a death sentence. This is an indication that the legal system requires tangible factors beyond mere words to justify reducing the severity of criminal charges or punishments.
Free speech can be limited in extreme scenarios that create a clear and present danger, but the context in which words are spoken (as noted in the circular about free speech rights) is critical to determining their legal effect.