...personal harm. These "epithets" and this "personal abuse," directed toward a particular individual, were not "in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution." Id.; Cantwell [v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 310; 60 S Ct 900; 84 L Ed 2d 1213 (1940).] Accordingly, the...

...certain welldefined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem....a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument."12 The fact that Chaplinsky was engaging in religious conduct just before he uttered the...

...states could regulate "commercial soliciting and canvassing."97 In Cantwell, Justice Roberts wrote that "resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any...communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution."98 He coupled these two unrelated dicta in Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1 942), demonstrating...

...which has "no essential part of any exposition of ideas,"55 and "epithets or personal abuse," which are "not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution. "S(1 But the judicial creation of "low value" categories is the exception rather than the rule. Generally,...

...(315 US 568, 571-72). The Court quoted approvingly words from an earlier Jehovah's Witnesses case, "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any...act would raise no question under that instrument" (Cantwellv. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 309-10 [1940]). The apparent purpose of the Chaplinsky court was...

...leaflet intended to arouse racial hatred. Speaking for the Court, Justice Felix Frankfurter noted that "[r]esort to epithets or personal abuse is not in...information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution." He upheld the group libel law, and tacitly recognized that racially or religiously bigoted maledictions...