Gooding v. Wilson

Background

A Georgia man who picketed a U.S. Army induction building was convicted for using "opprobrious words and abusive language" to two police officers under Georgia Code § 26-6303 after a scuffle. The state courts upheld the conviction. He then sought federal habeas relief; the federal district court set aside the conviction and the Court of Appeals affirmed, bringing the facial challenge to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Georgia courts had narrowly limited the law to so-called "fighting words" — words that by their very utterance tend to provoke immediate violence. The majority examined Georgia precedents (Fish, Jackson, Lyons, Elmore) and concluded the state decisions applied the statute beyond Chaplinsky-style fighting words. Because those rulings and the statute’s terms made it capable of punishing protected speech, the Court found the law vague and overbroad and invalid on its face.

Real world impact

The decision prevents Georgia prosecutors from using § 26-6303 to criminally punish a wide range of offensive spoken words unless the law is rewritten or authoritatively narrowed. Protesters, ordinary citizens, and police encounters are affected: many abusive or insulting utterances cannot be punished under the struck-down statute. This Supreme Court ruling resolves the facial challenge and strikes the statute.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun dissented, saying the statute plainly targeted face-to-face fighting words and that the majority erred by relying on old state cases and an expansive overbreadth doctrine; they warned the result removes a tool for dealing with threatening speech.