Connection lost
Server error
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Jehovah’s Witness was convicted for calling a city marshal a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist.” The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that such “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case established the “fighting words” doctrine, a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. It created a two-tier theory of speech, where certain utterances lacking constitutional value can be regulated to preserve public order and morality.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was distributing religious literature on a public sidewalk. After citizens complained he was denouncing religion as a “racket,” a disturbance occurred. The City Marshal, Bowering, encountered Chaplinsky and repeated an earlier warning about the restless crowd. Chaplinsky responded by calling Bowering a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist.” He was convicted under a New Hampshire statute that made it a crime to address any “offensive, derisive or annoying word” to another person in a public place. Chaplinsky challenged his conviction, arguing the statute violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and worship, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the conviction, narrowly construing the statute to apply only to words having a “direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed,” effectively limiting it to what it termed “fighting words.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state statute that prohibits addressing another person in public with face-to-face words likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech?
No. The Court held that the New Hampshire statute, as authoritatively construed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state statute that prohibits addressing another person in public with face-to-face words likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech?
Conclusion
Chaplinsky is a foundational First Amendment case that created the "fighting words" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
Legal Rule
The First Amendment does not protect certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, articulated a two-tier theory of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech. -