Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

What was the REASONING OF THE COURT?

- Court defined "fighting words" as those considered able to inflict injury or incite a disturbance of the peace (harm of words outweighs social interest and morality) - judges reasoned that "personal abuse" and "fighting words" are NOT protected by the constitution - classified his speech as "fighting words" because it caused a direct harm to the target and could be construed as an immediate disturbance of peace - state had the police power to prohibit this speech in name of public peace and order

What are the FACTS OF THE CASE?

- Walter Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness who was distributing literature and verbally attacking other forms of religions on a public street in Rochester - Citizens began to the town marshal (Bowering) that he was denouncing religions as "rackets" - he warned Chaplinsky the crowd was getting restless and urged him to stop - Chaplinsky then called the marshal a "damned fascist" and "damned racketeer" - he was arrested and convicted under the Public Laws of New Hampshire, which prohibited the use of "offensive, derisive or annoying" words toward a specific individual in a public space - he argued that the law was too vague and, therefore, unconstitutional

What was the DECISION OF THE CASE?

- unanimous decision - Court upheld Chaplinsky's initial conviction concluding that his 1st amendment rights were not violated because certain limitations are placed on various classes of speech - determined 1st amendment does not protect "lewd, profane, obscene, libelous or insulting" words

What was the topic of the case?

Fighting Words

Who was the defendant in this case?

Walter Chaplinsky