Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court articulated that there are definite and narrowly limited classes of speech which "the prevention and punishment of . . . have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 571. Chaplinsky was convicted for addressing to another on a public sidewalk the words, "You are a God d---ed racketeer," and "a d---ed Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists." Id. 569. The New Hampshire law under which Chaplinsky was convicted provided: "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 . . . ." Id. On appeal, Chaplinsky challenged the constitutionality of the statute as inhibiting freedom of expression because it was vague and indefinite. Id. However, because the New Hampshire Supreme Court had previously construed the statute as being limited to those words having "a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed . . .," the Supreme Court upheld the statute as having been narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace." Id. 573 . Still, the Chaplinsky court observed that those words constituting fighting words were "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Id. 574. In Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, the statute in question read: "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." Id. 569. The appellant in Chaplinsky was convicted of violation of the statute by addressing these words to the city marshal: "You are a God d The United States Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction, finding "the statute narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace." Id. 573.