Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
- Decided
- March 9, 1942
- Docket
- 255
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,706 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “arrest me” and “damn” were not fighting words and listing other Georgia cases that did involve fighting words under Chaplinsky — Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual Capacity (2007)
- holding that states may punish those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" — (untitled) (2006)
- recognizing that an expression delivered with a “disarming smile” may not comprise fighting words while the same expression delivered in another context may — Svedberg v. Stamness (1994)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*569] Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire:
“No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.”
Cite this
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.