chaplinsky vs. new hampshire?

Question

can you guys help me to understand what happened in this supreme court case and what was the verdict. thanks

Answer 1

"OVERVIEW: Appellant (Chaplinsky) was convicted under a New Hampshire statute, N.H. Pub. Laws ch. 378, § 2, for using offensive language towards another person in public. Appellant contended that the statute was invalid under U.S. Const. amend. XIV because it placed an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech and because it was vague and indefinite. In affirming the lower court's decision, the court noted that there were certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which had never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem, such as "fighting" words. The lower court declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve public peace, and in appellant's case, the forbidden words were those that had a direct tendency to cause acts of violence. Furthermore, the word "offensive" was not defined in terms of what a particular addressee thought, it was defined as what reasonable men of common intelligence understood as words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. The court held that the statute was narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of the state power.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed appellant's conviction under the statute prohibiting the use of offensive words towards another in a public place. The challenged statute, on its face and as applied, did not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment, as it did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee. "

Answer 2

Chaplinsky Vs New Hampshire

Answer 3

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

The defendant was convicted of verbal acts (speech) resulting in a breach of the peace. After the intial conviction, there was a trial de novo of appellant before a jury in the Superior Court. He was found guilty and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2d 754.

The NH statute forbid "any offensive, derisive or annoying words".
The NH Supreme Court interpreted that the statute only applied if the words resulted in a breach of the peace, which is already a separate criminal violation.

The US Supreme Court said that's a reasonable interpretation, which is the equivalent of "fighting words", an unprotected category already recognized by the Supreme Court. So, no constitutional problems.