...speech."50 The second is the "fighting words" doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which recognized 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...

...understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punisbment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.' " Norman-Meyer verbally...

...to incite an immediate breach of the peace."53 In the course of its opinion, the Court asserted that "[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited...have never been thought to raise any Constitutional 46. 310 US 88 (1940). 47. Id. at 104-5. 48. 310 US 296 (1941). 49. 314 US 292 (1941). 50. 31 9 US 624...

...analysis by adopting the interpretation of the New Hampshire court that confined the statute to words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Chaplinsky, 572). It was the risk of a breach of the peace, the Supreme Court concluded, that permitted...

..."fighting words." Since the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case, the "fighting words," namely the words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"1' have been held to constitute an exception to the First Amendment's general protection of freedom...

...First Amendment protection because their "very utterance inflicts injury." 9 Included on that list were "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words.'" 10 Thus, for example, any effort to ban or discriminate against truly "obscene" materials may theoretically...

...characteristics that justifies" the constitutional status of fighting words is that such words "by their 159 very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568, 572 (1942). Here Stevens argues, first, that certain kinds...

...that where words themselves were of an illegal nature: 'lewd, obscene, libellous or profane words, and "fighting words" - those which, by their very utterance...or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace' (Gellman, 1991: 362-3).2 A similar position emerged in the UK, with certain forms of expression illegal...

...that is 44 505 US 377(1992). 45 See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942)( fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury...tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"). RAV, supra note 44, 505 US at 391. The Supreme Court has heard arguments in another crossburning case,...

...engaged in the most perverse forms of sexual conduct. The Supreme Court ruled more than 50 years ago that there are "certain well-defined and narrowly limited...of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem'* including "the lewd and obscene." The...