In the case of Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, Walter Chaplinsky, a jehovah's witness, was handing out religious pamphlets and speaking one afternoon in Rochester, New Hampshire, with a crowd gathered around him. As he spoke against orginized religion, the crowd grew rowdy, causing a court marshal appround Walter but he reminded the crowd that Walter was within the law. After the encounter, the marshal recieved word that a riot had broke out where Walter was speaking. Upon returning to the scene, the marshal witnessed Walter being brought to the police station by another officer. Walter was arrested for breaking a New Hampshire law banning the use of "offensive, derisive, or annoying" words towards others preventing them from minding their own personal business. Later, justice Francis W. Murphy held the certain words written or spoken, are exempt from the first amendment protection when they cause violet rections by listeners. From my perspective, I agree with the ruling the justice made. People shoudn't be saying offensive things that could potentally lead to violnce from nearby listeners. They should keep their own personal beliefs and opinions to themselves. That way, they don't offend anyone by insulting them. This will cause the community to be more peaceful and less violent.

How would you reply to this comment based on your personal knowledge and opinion about Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire?

2. The treatment of the Turpin children is beyond cruel. It's exactly why the government should have the right to intervene into juveniles lives if there being neglected or abused. It was beyond inhumane for the parents of those children to leave them in piles of trash and chained to their beds or without food. This would prove those parents unfit to care for children. They could barely use basic vocabulary, they werent aware of normal outside activity which is essential for growing childrens. I worry if the girl wouldve just been returned home if she didnt provide proof to the deputy arrviving at the scene because the 911 operator nor the deputy seemed to believe anything the child was saying until she proved it to the deputy with pictures. If she didnt get the phone and escaped would those children even be alive today? I think the strict rules the school boards enforce like attendance, and grades, and continues contact with parents is important to minimize future instances like this as well as the obligation of authorities to speak up if they see anything abnormal.

How would you reply to this based on your personal knowledge and opinion about the Turpin children from the documentary "House of Horrors"?