Facts of the Case
Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was distributing religious literature on the street in Rochester, New Hampshire. His speech attracted a hostile crowd, and after an altercation with police, Chaplinsky called the town marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist.” He was arrested under a New Hampshire law that prohibited intentionally directing offensive or derisive speech at others in public. Chaplinsky argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
Constitutional Question
Does a state law that prohibits offensive or derisive speech in public violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech?
Arguments
- Chaplinsky’s Arguments:
- The statute was overly broad and infringed on his constitutional right to free speech.
- His words, while harsh, were expressions of opinion and should be protected.
- Punishing him for criticizing public officials chilled political and religious expression.
- New Hampshire’s Arguments:
- The state has an interest in preserving public order and preventing breaches of the peace.
- “Fighting words” — words likely to provoke immediate violence or retaliation — do not serve any social value and fall outside First Amendment protection.
- Chaplinsky’s insults were not an expression of ideas but a personal attack designed to incite anger.
Decision
The Court, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, upheld Chaplinsky’s conviction.
- Justice Frank Murphy, writing for the Court, established the “fighting words” doctrine: certain categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, including:
- Lewd and obscene speech
- Profane language
- Libelous speech
- “Fighting words” — words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
The Court ruled Chaplinsky’s words were “fighting words” and therefore not constitutionally protected.
Significance
- Created the “fighting words” doctrine: This was one of the first clear statements that some forms of speech lie outside First Amendment protection.
- Expanded state authority: Gave states the power to regulate speech that could incite violence or disrupt peace.
- Later narrowed: Over time, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the fighting words doctrine, applying it rarely in later cases.
Chaplinsky remains significant because it carved out a category of speech — “fighting words” — that is still recognized as unprotected under the First Amendment, even though later courts have applied it narrowly.