Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Significance, Court Develops Two-tiered Theory Of The First Amendment, Fighting Words
State of New Hampshire
That a state statute prohibiting certain types of public speech violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Hayden C. Covington
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Frank R. Kenison
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, James Francis Byrnes, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Frank Murphy (writing for the Court), Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone
Date of Decision
9 March 1942
Reasoning that the Constitution does not protect some "well defined and narrowly limited" types of speech, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld both the statute and Chaplinsky's conviction under it.
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
- Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963).
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
- Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Biskupic, Joan and Elder WittGuide to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1997).
- Greenawalt, Kent. Fighting Words: Individuals, Communities, and Liberties of Speech. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
- Saunders, Kevin W. Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media's First Amendment Protection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996.
- Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. New York: New York University Press, 1994.
- Colegrove v. Green - Significance, Court Declares Apportionment A "political Question", Further Readings
- Caryl Chessman Trial: 1948 - Defends Himself, Controversial Transcript
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Significance
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Court Develops Two-tiered Theory Of The First Amendment
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Fighting Words
- Other Free Encyclopedias