Georgia had a law that made it
illegal to, without provocation, to say to people, "opprobrious words
or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace."
Known as fighting words.
Wilson was at a Vietnam War
protests and threatened to kill some of the policemen trying to break up
the protest. He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace.
Wilson was convicted of
breaching the peace. He appealed.
Wilson argued that the
Georgia law was unconstitutional since it infringed on his 1st
Amendment right to free speech.
The US Supreme Court
overturned the conviction and held the Georgia law to be unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court
acknowledged that certain forms of speech (including fighting words) were not constitutional protected.
See Chaplinsky v. New
Hampshire (315 U.S. 568 (1942)).
However, the Court found
that the language of the Georgia law was overbroad because "opprobrious words or abusive
language" can include things that are not fighting words.
The Court found that words
cannot be banned based solely on their offensive or vulgar nature.
Compare to R.A.V. v. City
of St. Paul, Minnesota (505 U.S. 377
(1992)), where the US Supreme Court found that laws that are too narrowly
defined can be unconstitutional infringements on free speech
because they drawn content-based distinctions.
So a Statute can be held
unconstitutional if it bans too much, or if it doesn't ban enough.
