# City of Cincinnati v. Karlan

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 10, 1974 · 39 Ohio St. 2d 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755329

## Case

- **Full name:** City of Cincinnati v. Karlan
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 10, 1974
- **Citations:** 39 Ohio St. 2d 107; 68 Ohio Op. 2d 62; 314 N.E.2d 162; 1974 Ohio LEXIS 405
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Neill
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
- **Cited by:** 67 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755329

## Opinion text

O’Neill, G. J.,
dissenting. The ordinance in question here, Cincinnati Ordinance 901-d4, neither mentions nor is concerned with spoken words. Yet the majority adheres *111 to the former judgment of this court on the ground that defendant’s utterances are fighting words which are punishable as a criminal act.
As noted in Gooding v. Wilson (1972), 405 U. S. 518, 523 , the decisions of the United States Supreme Court “since Chaplinsky [Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), 315 U. S. 568 ] have continued to recognize state power constitutionally to punish ‘fighting’ words under carefully drawn statutes not also susceptible of application to protected expression * *
In my opinion, Cincinnati Ordinance 901-d4 is not a “carefully drawn” proscription of unprotected speech and is “susceptible of application to protected expression.” Therefore, it is “constitutionally overbroad and * * * is facially invalid.” Lewis v. New Orleans (1974), U. S. , 39 L. Ed. 2d 214, 220 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755329. Public record. Not legal advice.