State v. Fratzke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing the harassment conviction because, although the language fell under the statute, it could be construed to have a “legitimate purpose”
• defining fighting words as “those personally abusive epithets which ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ ” (citation omitted)
• reversing harassment conviction based on citizen’s letter complaining about speed laws, enforcement priorities, and one particular state trooper
• identifying protest of government action as a legitimate purpose for offensive written communication
• “‘Fighting words’ are those personally abusive epithets which ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’” (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942))
• insufficient evidence of lack of legitimate purpose for letter led to reversal of harassment conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).