Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

E362101

First Amendment case United States Supreme Court case freedom of speech case landmark decision

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "fighting words" doctrine, holding that certain personally abusive epithets are not protected by the First Amendment.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire canonical	1
Walter Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire	1
Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted under a New Hampshire law for calling a city marshal offensive names in a public place	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488657 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire]

A. Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
B. Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
C. Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
D. Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Target entity description: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "fighting words" doctrine, holding that certain personally abusive epithets are not protected by the First Amendment.

A. Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
B. Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
C. Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
D. Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
E. Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	First Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ freedom of speech case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
arguedDate	1942-02-05 ⓘ
citation	315 U.S. 568 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionAppliedToStatesBy	Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Fourteenth Amendment
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
criminalCharge	violation of New Hampshire public order statute ⓘ
decisionDate	1942-03-09 ⓘ
decisionType	unanimous decision ⓘ
definedConcept	fighting words ⓘ
doctrineEstablished	fighting words doctrine ⓘ
factSummary	Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted under a New Hampshire law for calling a city marshal offensive names in a public place ⓘ linked to: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
fightingWordsDefinition	words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace ⓘ
fullCaseName	Walter Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire ⓘ linked to: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
holding	A state may constitutionally punish the use of fighting words without violating the First Amendment ⓘ Certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, including fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment ⓘ
impact	influenced later Supreme Court cases on offensive and abusive speech ⓘ provided a categorical exception to First Amendment protection for fighting words ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal jurisdiction ⓘ linked to: federal judiciary of the United States
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalIssue	constitutionality of a state statute prohibiting offensive or derisive speech in public ⓘ scope of First Amendment free speech protections ⓘ
locationOfIncident	Rochester, New Hampshire ⓘ
opinionOfTheCourtBy	Justice Frank Murphy ⓘ
originatingCourt	Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ
partyAffiliationOrStatus	Walter Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s Witness ⓘ
petitioner	Walter Chaplinsky ⓘ
precedentFor	Beauharnais v. Illinois ⓘ Cohen v. California ⓘ Gooding v. Wilson ⓘ R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ⓘ
relatedAreaOfLaw	hate speech regulation ⓘ public order offenses ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	State of New Hampshire ⓘ linked to: New Hampshire
resultForPetitioner	conviction affirmed ⓘ
speechCategory	unprotected speech ⓘ
stateLawAtIssue	New Hampshire statute prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any person lawfully in a street or public place ⓘ
subsequentTreatment	fighting words doctrine later narrowed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions ⓘ
topic	categories of unprotected speech under the First Amendment ⓘ limits on offensive speech in public ⓘ
volume	315 ⓘ
vote	9-0 ⓘ
year	1942 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court → includesCase → Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ⓘ

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire → fullCaseName → Walter Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire ⓘ

linked to: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire → factSummary → Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted under a New Hampshire law for calling a city marshal offensive names in a public place ⓘ