The Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) is usually known for sorting out the exception of "fighting words" in the First Amendment. However, it is said that a person has no constitutional protection when he or she passes an insult to another in public 1 . The words by the Phelps and other believers, as seen on their banners, in Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s burial had a probability of causing violence or leading to violence. This probability is because the words were "fighting words" and they were said or preferably expressed in person at the burial. Meaning, the case was not constitutionally protected, and anyone would violently react towards the issue causing violence.
This case of the Phelps is neither a critical distinction nor a distinction with a difference. It is a case among many other examples that people have come across; hence, there is nothing unique about it. Furthermore, when one goes through the Chaplinsky, earlier research shows that it is not the law 2 . People use Chaplinsky in making general opinions, which are not protected by the constitution. The reason why the constitution does not protect these opinions is that they might lead to violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moving ahead to finding the relationship between words and actions or appearance, “Words” do include actions or appearance. The words determine the action to be taken. In other words, it can be said that words have actions and appearance in them because they determine what action and appearance are made. An example is the messages displayed in banners by the Phelps. The words of the messages include action and appearance in that people would get irritated and react to them. That is why Synder’s father saw the messages and took action immediately because the messages rather spoiled the appearance of the family 3 .
References
Volokh, E, No, Gov. Dean, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire does not recognize a ‘hate speech’ exception. TWP , April, 22, 2017. Retrieved November 26, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/22/no-gov-dean-chaplinsky-v-new-hampshire-does-not-recognize-a-hate-speech-exception/?utm_term=.365a62ed453c
