BETHEL Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire Criminal Law Case Study

1.Capstone Case – Chaplinsky v. New HampshireAppellant was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.” The charge was based on the claim that Chaplinsky stated in a public place, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”Do you think that the language used by Chaplinsky should be subject to governmental regulation? Why or why not?Do you believe that all manner of speech should be protected by the First Amendment? If not, what limits would you put on such protections?What are “fighting words”? Why aren’t they protected by the First Amendment?2. Read the two cases from your textbook—Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974) and Bousquet v. Arkansas, 548 S. W. 2d 125 (1977)—involving offensive language directed at a police officer. Should these types of disorderly conduct or fighting words cases be treated differently because the target of the language is a public official? What factors are relevant to your judgment?3.Capstone Case: United States v. WilliamsThe United States Code criminalizes, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography. This case presents the question whether that statute is overbroad under the First Amendment or impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.Should speech in the form of an offer to engage in a criminal act (exchange child pornography) be sufficient to establish criminal liability?Does your answer to question 1 change if there is no apparent ability to actually exchange child pornography?4.Read the opinions in United States v. Whorley, 550 F. 3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008) and United States v. Kilbride, 534 F. 3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). Then consider these two rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. Are obscenity laws still constitutional in light of the Court’s opinion in Lawrence?Each question must have a minimum of 400 words. must have references that are within the past 7 years. Must be in APA format