Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, was a case decided by the
Supreme Court of the United StatesThe Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate...
, in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the
First AmendmentThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the...
's guarantee of
freedom of speechFreedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used...
.
In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a
Jehovah's WitnessJehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian denomination. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 17 million...
, 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.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire' Start a new discussion about 'Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire' Answer questions from other users |
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, was a case decided by the
Supreme Court of the United StatesThe Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate...
, in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the
First AmendmentThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the...
's guarantee of
freedom of speechFreedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used...
.
Facts of the case
In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a
Jehovah's WitnessJehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, millenarian Christian denomination. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism; they report convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 17 million...
, 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. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" and was arrested. Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.
For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under the statute it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "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 infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.
Decision of the Court
The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice
Frank MurphyWilliam Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
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.
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 insult
An insult is an expression, statement which is considered degrading and offensive. Insults may be intentional or accidental...
ing 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.
Significance
This two‐tier approach retains importance for those who believe that carefully crafted controls over certain categories of speech (such as pornography, commercial advertising, or abusive epithets) do not violate First Amendment guarantees. Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.