BETHEL Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire Criminal Law Case Study
Subject
Other
Question Description
1.
Capstone Case – Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 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.” The charge was based on the claim that Chaplinsky stated in a public place, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”
Do you think that the language used by Chaplinsky should be subject to governmental regulation? Why or why not?
Do you believe that all manner of speech should be protected by the First Amendment? If not, what limits would you put on such protections?
What are “fighting words”? Why aren’t they protected by the First Amendment?