Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Frank Murphy upheld the Chaplinsky’s conviction under New Hampshire’s Offensive Conduct Law. Murphy determined that Chaplinsky had used “fighting words,” which are words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” This established the fighting words doctrine, which stipulates that “such utterances are 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.”

Murphy ruled that fighting words are not constitutionally protected and emphasized that the government has a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order in society. Certain forms of expression, like those which provoke violence or disrupt public tranquility, can be restricted. Murphy explained that the purpose of New Hampshire’s law was to preserve the public peace and that “the statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee. . .” He concluded, writing that “a statute punishing verbal acts, carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression, is not too vague for a criminal law.”