Lisa+-+Chaplinsky

Chaplinsky vs. State of New Hampshire

Resources: Below is a quick and dirty overview of the Chaplinsky case in Wikipedia - for foundational reading.
 * 1. WIKIPEDIA **
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire**

Background
In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a [|Jehovah's Witness], was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown [|Rochester], passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way, he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. He was arrested. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under New Hampshire's Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name." Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his [|First Amendment] and [|Fourteenth Amendment] rights to free speech.

Alternate views
Some modern legal historians have disputed the generally accepted version of events that led to Chaplinsky's arrest.[|[][|1][|]] [|UCLA] professor Gary Blasi's article on the topic describes the events thus: While preaching, Chaplinsky was surrounded by men who mocked the opposition of Jehovah's Witnesses to saluting the flag. One man attempted to hit Chaplinsky in full view of the town marshal, who warned Chaplinsky that he was in danger but did not arrest his assailant. After the marshal left, another man produced a flagpole and attempted to impale Chaplinsky; while Chaplinsky was pinned against a car by the pole, other members of the crowd struck him. A police officer arrived and, rather than dispersing the crowd, took Chaplinsky into custody. En route to the station, the officer, as well as members of the crowd, insulted Chaplinsky and his religion. Chaplinsky responded by calling the town marshal, who had returned to assist the officer, a "damn fascist and a racketeer" and was arrested for the use of offensive language in public.

Opinion of the Court
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice [|Frank Murphy] advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.[|[][|2][|]] Murphy wrote: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the [|insulting] or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky
 * 2. What is the [Fighting Words] Doctrine? website **


 * **Case Name:** || //**Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire**//**,** 315 U.S. 568 (1942) ||
 * **Argued:** || Feb. 5, 1942 ||
 * **Date Decided:** || March 9, 1942 ||
 * **Vote:** || Unanimous ||
 * **Facts:** ||  Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, made several statements denouncing organized religion while distributing religious literature on a public street. Several citizens complained to the city marshal that Chaplinsky's message was offensive. The marshal informed the citizens that Chaplinsky was lawfully engaged but warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting restless. A disturbance subsequently occurred, and an officer on duty proceeded to escort Chaplinsky, without placing him under arrest, to the police station. En route, they encountered the city marshal, whereupon Chaplinsky proclaimed, "You are a God damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist." For these words, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the use of offensive or annoying words when addressing another person in public. Claiming that the statute placed an unreasonable restraint on free speech, Chaplinsky appealed his conviction. ||
 * **Issue:** ||  The Court noted that freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, is a fundamental personal right and liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action (//Lovell v. Griffin,// 303 U.S. 444, 450). However, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the New Hampshire statute, which proscribed certain speech, in fact violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ||
 * **Legal Basis for Decision:** || The Court noted that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain "well-defined and narrowly limited" classes of speech that can be proscribed and regulated without constitutional problem. These include the "lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words'." The Court defined fighting words as those words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Fighting words are excluded, the Court reasoned, because any benefit derived from their utterance is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. The Court determined that the statute was constitutional. Finding that the epithets uttered by Chaplinsky were likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace, the Court ruled that Mr. Chaplinsky's words were unprotectable fighting words. ||
 * **Quotable:** || "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Writing for the Majority:** || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Justice ||

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/chaplinsky-v-new-hampshire-2/
 * 3. Case Briefs website **

Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Fighting words” are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)


 * 4. Chaplinsky Brief **

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~dorresp/CSSA%20Competencies/Examples%20for%20Portfolio/Chaplinsky%20v%20final.pdf

This is a pdf - I printed a copy of this and labeled it #4 to correspond with each of these resources