1 / 6

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness. He stood near the entrance of the City Hall in the city of Rochester Calling the city marshal a “a God- damned racketeer” and “ a damned Fascist.”. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire.

carolyn-foster
Download Presentation

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness. He stood near the entrance of the City Hall in the city of Rochester Calling the city marshal a “a God- damned racketeer” and “ a damned Fascist.” Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

  2. Chaplinsky also called “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The citizens complained to the city Marshal, Bowering, about how Chaplinsky was calling religion as a “racket.” Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

  3. Marshal Bowering warned Chaplinsky about the crowds restlessness. Later when a roit was about to on the way Bowering repeated his warning and got the words of the complaint. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

  4. Chaplinsky was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2 by offending or annoying a public person. The Supreme Cout agreed with circuit court the his words where fighting words. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

  5. Whether a prison inmate can disreguard a high-ranking officials’ qualified immunity and sue those officials for religious discrimination and for their interference with religious practice where the officials had clear notice of the alleged discrimination. Ashcroft v Iqbal

More Related