Реферат: Mitchell V Wisconsin Essay Research Paper

position than there are that support Mitchell?s argument. However,

many of these rulings are of questionable constitutionality

themselves. Two cases arguably support Rehnquist?s position, but the

Supreme Court has traditionally ignored the first of rulings, and the

second has been misinterpreted.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Justice Murphy wrote what has become

known as the ?fighting words doctrine?. Chaplinsky was a Jehova?s

Witness in a predominantly Catholic town. He distributed leaflets to

a hostile crowd, and was refused protection by the town?s marshall.

Chaplinsky then referred to the marshall as a ?god damn racketeer and

a damn fascist?, for which he was convicted of breaching the peace.

Justice Murphy?s opinion argued that certain speech, including that

which is lewd, obscene, profane, or insulting, is not covered by the

First Amendment.

According to Murphy, ?There are certain well-defined and narrowly

limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has

never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include

the lewd and obscene, the 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 the peace.?

Under Chaplinky, bigoted remarks would probably qualify as ?fighting?

words. However, the courts have generally been reluctant to uphold

the ?fighting?words doctrine, and the Supreme Court has never done so

(Gellman 369,370). Even if today?s Court were to consider Chaplinsky

valid, Mitchell?s comments, though racial in nature, would be

difficult to classify as bigoted. In fact, Constitutional

considerations aside, the biggest problem with penalty enhancement

laws such as Wisconsin?s, is classifying and prosecuting an incident

as hate-motivated (Cacas, 33). At what point can we be certain the