Opinion ID: 1351645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Protected and Unprotected Speech

Text: The United States [2] and Colorado [3] constitutions provide, respectively, that no law abridging or impairing freedom of speech shall be enacted. The courts have recognized that the constitutional prohibition is not absolute. A limited number of exceptions have been carved from the general prohibition against such laws where an overriding state interest has been clearly shown. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942); Bolles v. People, supra . Courts have upheld the constitutionality of statutes which prohibit obscenity, [4] libel, [5] incitement, [6] invasion of substantial privacy interests of the home, [7] and fighting words. [8] However, the prohibitory legislation must be precisely and narrowly drawn to proscribe only unprotected speech. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). Otherwise, the statute will be struck down as facially overbroad.