by Farkel 13 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Farkel, I remember reading about this case online awhile back. I can't find it, but I think it was one of those sites that have lists of Watchtower cases. If I run across it, I'll pm you the site. If you Google
Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, 315 US, 568, decided 9 March, 1942tons of sites come up.
This two-tier approach retains importance for those who believe that carefully crafted controls over certain categories of speech (such as pornography, commercial advertising, or abusive epithets) do not violate First Amendment guarantees. Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.
The Chaplinsky case was also discussed on this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/166078/1/Judge-Rutherford-its-OK-to-say-God-damn-Chaplinsky-v-New-Hampshire
If you're able to find a copy of the Society's briefs to the Supreme Court (submitted by Rutherford and Covington), you'll see the argument that it's ok to say God-Damn.
Brother Chaplinsky was a fearless preacher because the end of Satan's entire system was so very, very near... in 1942.
