Question

• Should the “fighting words” doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire be reinvigorated and applied on a broader scale to deny First Amendment protection to volatile speech like that expressed in places like Charlottesville, Virginia, in August of 2017? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Walter Chaplinsky was taken into custody by a police officer who wanted to prevent further public disturbance. While being taken to the police station, he proceeded to insult the police officer after receiving equal treatment from the crowd who was allegedly attacking him. The court denied him First Amendment because it considered that the insults produced by Chaplinsky did not contribute to any "expression of ideas".

Despite considering that it would be a correct action to apply this sort of action on a broader scale, it would certainly lead to the emergence of numerous court cases similar to this one. This would mean considerable additional workload to the courts, hindering the entity's efficiency.