Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
“The fighting words case”
Basic Facts and Case Background:
In November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah‟s Witness, was distributing literature about his
religious sect on the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire. A crowd began to form as Chaplinsky
called all organized religion “a racket.” The passersby thought his message was offensive and
complained to the City Marshal, who then warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting
restless. Later during the day a disturbance occurred near Chaplinsky and the nearest traffic
officer on duty brought him to the police station without informing him that he was under arrest
or was going to be arrested. On their way to the police station they ran into the City Marshal who
again warned Chaplinsky, to which Chaplinsky repeatedly proclaimed, “You are a God damned
racketeer” and “a damned fascist.”
Procedural History and Court Decision:
For saying these words, Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute
prohibiting the use of offensive or annoying words when addressing another person in public.
Chaplinsky claimed that the statute placed an unreasonable restraint on free speech and appealed
his conviction. Upon appeal there was a trial de novo of appellant before a jury in the Superior
Court where he was found guilty and the conviction was affirmed by the New Hampshire
Supreme Court.
Chaplinsky appealed and said that the statute was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States, in that it placed an unreasonable restraint on freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of worship, and because it was vague and indefinite.
These contentions were overruled and the case then went to the Supreme Court of the United
States on appeal.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, upheld the decision. Thus,
there was no dissenting opinion.
Issues Raised:
Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment and is a fundamental personal right and
liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action.
The court was faced with the issue of whether the New Hampshire statute or application of the
statute violated Chaplinsky‟s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Rationale Provided by the Court:
“Fighting words” are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Chaplinsky‟s “fighting words” in no way contributed to the original mission of his demonstration
Free speech is not absolute under all conditions. There are narrowly defined classes of speech
that have never been protected by the First Amendment, including the "lewd and obscene, the
profane, the libelous, and the insulting or „fighting words,‟ which inflict injury or tend to excite
an immediate breach of the peace.
The Court noted that "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the
average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.
The New Hampshire Statute does not unconstitutionally impinge upon the right of free speech as
it only applies to fighting words. Since “fighting words” are not protected forms of speech, the
Supreme Court of the United States announced a permissible form of content-based restriction
on speech.
Other Important Factors:
A major difference between fighting words and criticism lies in the speaker‟s intent. Fighting
words are intended to inflict harm while criticism is intended to communicate ideas. Also,
fighting words are likely to provoke the average person to violence while criticisms are not.