Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
E362101
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "fighting words" doctrine, holding that certain personally abusive epithets are not protected by the First Amendment.
All labels observed (3)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488657 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire]
-
A.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
B.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
C.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
D.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Target entity description: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "fighting words" doctrine, holding that certain personally abusive epithets are not protected by the First Amendment.
-
A.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
B.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
-
C.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
D.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
E.
Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale is a 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
First Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ freedom of speech case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1942-02-05 ⓘ |
| citation | 315 U.S. 568 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionAppliedToStatesBy |
Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criminalCharge | violation of New Hampshire public order statute ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1942-03-09 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| definedConcept | fighting words ⓘ |
| doctrineEstablished | fighting words doctrine ⓘ |
| factSummary |
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted under a New Hampshire law for calling a city marshal offensive names in a public place
|
| fightingWordsDefinition | words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Walter Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
|
| holding |
A state may constitutionally punish the use of fighting words without violating the First Amendment
ⓘ
Certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, including fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment ⓘ |
| impact |
influenced later Supreme Court cases on offensive and abusive speech
ⓘ
provided a categorical exception to First Amendment protection for fighting words ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
federal judiciary of the United States
ⓘ
surface form:
United States federal jurisdiction
|
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutionality of a state statute prohibiting offensive or derisive speech in public
ⓘ
scope of First Amendment free speech protections ⓘ |
| locationOfIncident | Rochester, New Hampshire NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| opinionOfTheCourtBy | Justice Frank Murphy ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ |
| partyAffiliationOrStatus | Walter Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s Witness ⓘ |
| petitioner | Walter Chaplinsky ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
Beauharnais v. Illinois
ⓘ
Cohen v. California ⓘ Gooding v. Wilson ⓘ R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ⓘ |
| relatedAreaOfLaw |
hate speech regulation
ⓘ
public order offenses ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
New Hampshire
ⓘ
surface form:
State of New Hampshire
|
| resultForPetitioner | conviction affirmed ⓘ |
| speechCategory | unprotected speech ⓘ |
| stateLawAtIssue | New Hampshire statute prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any person lawfully in a street or public place ⓘ |
| subsequentTreatment | fighting words doctrine later narrowed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions ⓘ |
| topic |
categories of unprotected speech under the First Amendment
ⓘ
limits on offensive speech in public ⓘ |
| volume | 315 ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 ⓘ |
| year | 1942 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Description of subject: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "fighting words" doctrine, holding that certain personally abusive epithets are not protected by the First Amendment.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Walter Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire
this entity surface form:
Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted under a New Hampshire law for calling a city marshal offensive names in a public place