U.S. Supreme Court Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire No.

255 Argued February 5 !"#2 $e%ided &ar%h " !"#2 315 U.S. 568 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Syllabus !. 'hat part o( %. )*+ , 2 o( the -ubli% .aw o( New Hampshire whi%h (orbids under penalty that any person shall address /any o((ensive derisive or annoying word to any other person who is law(ully in any street or other publi% pla%e / or /%all him by any o((ensive or derisive name / was %onstrued by the Supreme Court o( the State in this %ase and be(ore this %ase arose as limited to the use in a publi% pla%e o( words dire%tly tending to %ause a brea%h o( the pea%e by provoking the person addressed to a%ts o( violen%e. Held: 0!1 'hat so %onstrued it is su((i%iently de(inite and spe%i(i% to %omply with re2uirements o( due pro%ess o( law. -. 5*). 021 'hat as applied to a person who on a publi% street addressed another as a /damned Fas%ist/ and a /damned ra%keteer / it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon (reedom o( spee%h. -. 5*#. 0)1 'he re(usal o( the state %ourt to admit eviden%e o((ered by the de(endant tending to prove provo%ation and eviden%e bearing on the

truth or (alsity o( the utteran%es %harged is open to no %onstitutional ob3e%tion. -. 5*#. 2. 'he Court noti%es 3udi%ially that the appellations /damned ra%keteer/ and /damned Fas%ist/ are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby %ause a brea%h o( the pea%e. -. 5*# "! N.H. )!4 !+ A.2d *5# a((irmed. A--5A. (rom a 3udgment a((irming a %onvi%tion under a state law denoun%ing the use o( o((ensive words when addressed by one person to another in a publi% pla%e. &6. 7US'8C5 &U6-H9 delivered the opinion o( the Court. Appellant a member o( the se%t known as 7ehovah:s ;itnesses was %onvi%ted in the muni%ipal %ourt o( 6o%hester New Hampshire (or violation o( Chapter )*+ , 2 o( the -ubli% .aws o( New Hampshire< /No person shall address any o((ensive derisive or annoying word to any other person who is law(ully in any street or other publi% pla%e nor %all him by any o((ensive or derisive name nor make any noise or e=%lamation in his presen%e and hearing with intent to deride o((end or annoy him or to prevent him (rom pursuing his law(ul business or o%%upation./ 'he %omplaint %harged that appellant /with (or%e and arms in a %ertain publi% pla%e in said %ity o( 6o%hester to>wit on the publi% sidewalk on the easterly side o( ;ake(ield Street near unto the entran%e o( the City Hall did unlaw(ully repeat the words (ollowing addressed to the %omplainant that is to say :9ou are a ?od damned ra%keteer: and :a damned Fas%ist and the whole government o( 6o%hester are Fas%ists or agents o( Fas%ists : the same being o((ensive derisive and annoying words and names./ Upon appeal there was a trial de novo o( appellant be(ore a 3ury in the Superior Court. He was (ound guilty and the 3udgment o( %onvi%tion was a((irmed by the Supreme Court o( the State. "! N.H. )!4 !+ A.2d *5#.

@y motions and e=%eptions appellant raised the 2uestions that the statute was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment o( the Constitution o( the United States in that it pla%ed an unreasonable restraint on (reedom o( spee%h (reedom o( the press and (reedom o( worship and be%ause it was vague and inde(inite. 'hese %ontentions were overruled and the %ase %omes here on appeal. 'here is no substantial dispute over the (a%ts. Chaplinsky was distributing the literature o( his se%t on the streets o( 6o%hester on a busy Saturday a(ternoon. &embers o( the lo%al %itiAenry %omplained to the City &arshal @owering that Chaplinsky was denoun%ing all religion as a /ra%ket./ @owering told them that Chaplinsky was law(ully engaged and then warned Chaplinsky that the %rowd was getting restless. Some time later a disturban%e o%%urred and the tra((i% o((i%er on duty at the busy interse%tion started with Chaplinsky (or the poli%e station but did not in(orm him that he was under arrest or that he was going to be arrested. Bn the way they en%ountered &arshal @owering who had been advised that a riot was under way and was there(ore hurrying to the s%ene. @owering repeated his earlier warning to Chaplinsky who then addressed to @owering the words set (orth in the %omplaint. Chaplinsky:s version o( the a((air was slightly di((erent. He testi(ied that when he met @owering he asked him to arrest the ones responsible (or the disturban%e. 8n reply @owering %ursed him and told him to %ome along. Appellant admitted that he said the words %harged in the %omplaint with the e=%eption o( the name o( the $eity. Bver appellant:s ob3e%tion the trial %ourt e=%luded as immaterial testimony relating to appellant:s mission /to prea%h the true (a%ts o( the @ible / his treatment at the hands o( the %rowd and the alleged negle%t o( duty on the part o( the poli%e. 'his a%tion was approved by the %ourt below whi%h held that neither provo%ation nor the truth o( the utteran%e would %onstitute a de(ense to the %harge. 8t is now %lear that /Freedom o( spee%h and (reedom o( the press whi%h are prote%ted by the First Amendment (rom in(ringement by Congress are among the (undamental personal rights and liberties whi%h are prote%ted by the Fourteenth Amendment (rom invasion by state a%tion./

Lovell v. G !""!n# )4) U. S. ### #54. CFootnote !D Freedom o( worship is similarly sheltered. Can$%ell v. Conne&$!&u$# )!4 U. S. 2"E )4). Appellant assails the statute as a violation o( all three (reedoms spee%h press and worship but only an atta%k on the basis o( (ree spee%h is warranted. 'he spoken not the written word is involved. And we %annot %on%eive that %ursing a publi% o((i%er is the e=er%ise o( religion in any sense o( the term. @ut even i( the a%tivities o( the appellant whi%h pre%eded the in%ident %ould be viewed as religious in %hara%ter and there(ore entitled to the prote%tion o( the Fourteenth Amendment they would not %loak him with immunity (rom the legal %onse2uen%es (or %on%omitant a%ts %ommitted in violation o( a valid %riminal statute. ;e turn there(ore to an e=amination o( the statute itsel(. Allowing the broadest s%ope to the language and purpose o( the Fourteenth Amendment it is well understood that the right o( (ree spee%h is not absolute at all times and under all %ir%umstan%es. CFootnote 2D 'here are %ertain well de(ined and narrowly limited %lasses o( spee%h the prevention and punishment o( whi%h have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. CFootnote )D !hese in"l#$e %he lew$ an$ &'s"ene, %he pr&(ane, %he li'el&#s, an$ %he ins#l%in) &r *(i)h%in)* w&r$s ++ %h&se whi"h, 'y %heir very #%%eran"e, in(li"% in,#ry &r %en$ %& in"i%e an imme$ia%e 'rea"h &( %he pea"e. CFootnote #D 8t has been well observed that su%h utteran%es are no essential part o( any e=position o( ideas and are o( su%h slight so%ial value as a step to truth that any bene(it that may be derived (rom them is %learly outweighed by the so%ial interest in order and morality. CFootnote 5D /6esort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense %ommuni%ation o( in(ormation or opinion sa(eguarded by the Constitution and its punishment as a %riminal a%t would raise no 2uestion under that instrument./ Can$%ell v. Conne&$!&u$# )!4 U. S. 2"E )4">)!4. 'he state statute here %hallenged %omes to us authoritatively %onstrued by the highest %ourt o( New Hampshire. 8t has two provisions >> the (irst

relates to words or names addressed to another in a publi% pla%eF the se%ond re(ers to noises and e=%lamations. 'he %ourt said< /'he two provisions are distin%t. Bne may stand separately (rom the other. Assuming without holding that the se%ond were un%onstitutional the (irst %ould stand i( %onstitutional./ ;e a%%ept that %onstru%tion o( severability and limit our %onsideration to the (irst provision o( the statute. CFootnote ED Bn the authority o( its earlier de%isions the state %ourt de%lared that the statute:s purpose was to preserve the publi% pea%e no words being /(orbidden e=%ept su%h as have a dire%t tenden%y to %ause a%ts o( violen%e by the persons to whom individually the remark is addressed./ CFootnote *D 8t was (urther said< /'he word :o((ensive: is not to be de(ined in terms o( what a parti%ular addressee thinks. . . . 'he test is what men o( %ommon intelligen%e would understand would be words likely to %ause an average addressee to (ight. . . . 'he 5nglish language has a number o( words and e=pressions whi%h by general %onsent are :(ighting words: when said without a disarming smile. . . . CSDu%h words as ordinary men know are likely to %ause a (ight. So are threatening pro(ane or obs%ene revilings. $erisive and annoying words %an be taken as %oming within the purview o( the statute as hereto(ore interpreted only when they have this %hara%teristi% o( plainly tending to e=%ite the addressee to a brea%h o( the pea%e. . . . 'he statute as %onstrued does no more than prohibit the (a%e>to>(a%e words plainly likely to %ause a brea%h o( the pea%e by the addressee words whose speaking %onstitutes a brea%h o( the pea%e by the speaker >> in%luding :%lassi%al (ighting words : words in %urrent use less :%lassi%al: but e2ually likely to %ause violen%e and other disorderly words in%luding pro(anity obs%enity and threats./ ;e are unable to say that the limited s%ope o( the statute as thus %onstrued %ontravenes the Constitutional right o( (ree e=pression. 8t is a statute narrowly drawn and limited to de(ine and punish spe%i(i% %ondu%t lying within the domain o( state power the use in a publi% pla%e o( words likely to %ause a brea%h o( the pea%e. C". Can$%ell v.

Conne&$!&u$# )!4 U. S. 2"E )!!F T'o n'!ll v. Alaba(a# )!4 U. S. ++ !45. 'his %on%lusion ne%essarily disposes o( appellant:s %ontention that the statute is so vague and inde(inite as to render a %onvi%tion thereunder a violation o( due pro%ess. A statute punishing verbal a%ts %are(ully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty o( e=pression is not too vague (or a %riminal law. C". Fo) v. Was'!n*$on 2)E U. S. 2*) 2**. CFootnote +D Nor %an we say that the appli%ation o( the statute to the (a%ts dis%losed by the re%ord substantially or unreasonably impinges upon the privilege o( (ree spee%h. Argument is unne%essary to demonstrate that the appellations /damned ra%keteer/ and /damned Fas%ist/ are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby %ause a brea%h o( the pea%e. 'he re(usal o( the state %ourt to admit eviden%e o( provo%ation and eviden%e bearing on the truth or (alsity o( the utteran%es is open to no Constitutional ob3e%tion. ;hether the (a%ts sought to be proved by su%h eviden%e %onstitute a de(ense to the %harge or may be shown in mitigation are 2uestions (or the state %ourt to determine. Bur (un%tion is (ul(illed by a determination that the %hallenged statute on its (a%e and as applied doe not %ontravene the Fourteenth Amendment. A""! (ed.