so maybe we're a bliss of another kind...

The correct answer is (d). If Elaine’s face-to-face profanity tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, then it’s constitutionally unprotected fighting words, see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

(a) is wrong because the question is whether the speech tends to incite a breach, not whether it actually incited the breach. (b) is wrong because Brandenburg deals with attempts to persuade others to commit crimes; there’s no reason to think that Elaine was intending to persuade Nader to imminently attack her. (c) is wrong because Nader is a public figure, and given Hustler v. Falwell, speech about a public figure may not be punished as intentional infliction of emotional distress unless it’s otherwise unprotected. (e) is wrong because the fact that speech involves a profanity doesn’t make it either fighting words or obscenity, see Cohen v. California.

And that concludes my first semester at Harvard Law School. :-)