Chaplinksy V. New Hampshire

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire was a case that established the fighting words doctrine. Chaplinksy was arrested under a state law that prohibited offensive and derisive speech. Court upheld the arrest. I will discuss what elements of this case were the reasons that court decided that a limitation on the First Amendment was justified in his case. Court also used this case in subsequent cases to determine the limitations on free speech.

In Terminiello v. Chicago, took place in 1949, the Supreme Court elaborated on the idea of free speech and it's potential to cause unrest and conflicts. It acknowledges that these are acceptable consequences and not enough to to limit the free speech. I think that the court was beginning to appear more in opposotion in holding a conviction by limiting free speech without a strong case. Terminiello spoke in a very large crowd and angered many groups of people causing an unrest among them. I will also discuss the relevance of Chaplisnky v. New Hampshire in this case and yet another modification to the Clear and Present Danger doctrine.

The 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, was the case that established a standard for actual malice. This standard required the plaintiff to prove that the statements were false or made with bad intentions. This made it more difficult for those who criticized government officials or public figures to drag to court or win a case without sufficient supporting evidence. I think that this is one of the more important cases that defined the standards of what is protected and what is not. In the past, there had been cases were a conviction were upheld without an acceptable proof from the plaintiff, where as now they must prove that the defendant is indeed a case that a conviction should be upheld and their activity is not protected by the First Amendment.