Comm 101 Notes on Chaplinsky and Cohen

Comm 101 Notes on Chaplinsky and Cohen - NOTES ON:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
NOTES ON : Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 ; 62 S.Ct. 766; 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942) -and- Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) In Schenck and Brandenburg , the Court identified a category of speech (inciteful speech) that is unprotected by the First Amendment. In these two cases, the Court identified and defined an additional category of unprotected speech: “fighting words ”. I. Chaplinsky : The issue was whether the First Amendment prohibited defendant’s conviction, under a New Hampshire statute that made it a misdemeanor to call anyone “any offensive or derisive name” in a public place, for calling the Rochester city marshal a ‘damned Fascist’ and ‘a God damned racketeer.’ The Court first noted that the First Amendment is not absolute, and then enumerated some well-recognized exceptions to its protection: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting”
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Comm 101 Notes on Chaplinsky and Cohen - NOTES ON:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online