...limited classes of speech which are not protected. These include the insulting or "fighting" words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Schenck v. US (1919): The Supreme Court recognized limits on speech, explaining that the clear and...

...to outlaw racist speech. According to the Court in this case, there were certain types of words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." For the Court, these words included calling a city marshal a "God damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist."23...

...Court explicitly recognized the existence of classes of speech, such as fighting words and the obscene, "the prevention and punishment of which have never...been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." And he noted that the First Amendment was fashioned "to assure unfettered exchange of ideas" and that...

...case which declared that "there are... narrowly limited classes of speech the punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem....tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Kalven regarded the Cohen case as inconsistent with the prohibition of profanity and undoubtedly he...

...v. New Hampshire, where a unanimous court opined that, among the classes of speech not protected are 'the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,...injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'103 For such utterances, the court reasoned, 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas,...

...case which declared that "there are...narrowly limited classes of speech the punishment of which has never been thought to raise any constitutional problem....profane, the libelous and the insulting or fighting words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of...

...directed at a person in public. The Supreme Court upheld Chaplinsky's conviction. It said that there were "certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes...been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." Those classes included obscenity, libel, and "fighting words." Chaplinsky's case said that the First...

...words' doctrine first enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942. 7S These are words 'which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'79 Chaplinksy had been convicted for calling a city marshall a 'God damned racketeer' and a...

...fascist." Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the Court denied constitutional protection for words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." There have been attempts to extend the notion of injurious speech to racial and ethnic epithets on...

...major resource for this section. See also Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568, 571—72 (1942) ("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."). ^Miller, 413 US at 27. Id. The three...