Edit Case Brief: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Bots, Administrators.

Case Summary

Case treatment
Cases that this case overturned:
Cases that this case partially overturned:
Cases that this case reaffirmed:
Cases that this case questioned:
Cases that this case criticized:
Cases that this case distinguished:
Cases that this case cited:
Cases that this case followed:
Related Cases:

Facts	Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, distributes religious literature in a public street. He also criticizes the beliefs of others who weren't Jehovah's Witnesses. A crowd became hostile to Chaplinsky. Police direct Chaplinsky to leave the scene. Chaplinsky insults City Marshal (police) in Bowering, New Hampshire.
Procedural History	Chaplinsky loses at every trial in New Hampshire including at the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Issues
Arguments
Holding	Chaplinsky's offensive language constituted "fighting words"; fighting words aren't protected by the [[First Amendment]].
Judgment
Reasons
Rule	SCOTUS defines "fighting words" as words that provoke a violent reaction from listeners.
Comments	Future US court opinions haven't been uniformly consistent with this 1942 SCOTUS decision.

Case Text Links

URL links to full case text	https://www.quimbee.com/cases/chaplinsky-v-new-hampshire
Source type (e.g. Case text, Video summary, etc.) (If blank, defaults to "Case text"):
Source (e.g. Justia, Oyez, etc.):

URL links to full case text	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568
Source type (e.g. Case text, Video summary, etc.) (If blank, defaults to "Case text"):
Source (e.g. Justia, Oyez, etc.):

The following section is to enter opinion authorship for each opinion part (concurrences, dissents, etc.).

Opinion Authorship

Free text:

Summary: