Which of the following types of speech is not protected by the First Amendment?

The assertion that fighting words, obscenity, and speech that produces imminent lawless action are not protected by the First Amendment is grounded in legal precedents that define the limits of free speech.

Fighting words are defined as those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The rationale for their lack of protection is that they can provoke immediate violent reactions, disrupting social order.

Obscenity is also outside the protections of the First Amendment, as established in cases like Miller v. California, wherein the Supreme Court set criteria to determine what constitutes obscene material. When speech is deemed obscene, it fails to convey any social value and is therefore not protected.

Speech that produces imminent lawless action refers to a category of speech that incites or encourages unlawful behavior that is likely to happen immediately. The Supreme Court articulated this standard in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where it was determined that speech advocating for illegal actions is not protected when it is directed towards inciting imminent lawlessness and is likely to produce such action.

In summary, the selection is correct because it accurately identifies types of speech that are deemed outside the protective scope of the First Amendment due to their potential to cause harm or incite