Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), the issue in a case of this kind is whether 'fighting words' were used. Here a police officer, while in the performance of his duty, was called 'G02q d——- M——- F——-' police.
If these words had been addressed by one citizen to another, face to face and in a hostile manner, I would have no doubt that they would be 'fighting words.' But the situation may be different where such words are addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code § 250.1, Comment 4 (Tent.Draft No. 13, 1961).
I see no genuine overbreadth problem in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 405 U.S. 903, 92 S. Ct. 2479.
I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S. Ct. 2488.
Dissent by Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S. Ct. 2484.