In the case of Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 1973, the U.S Supreme Court overturned a conviction for disorderly conduct against Robert Norwell who was arrested after he used offensive language towards a police officer during an encounter on public property. The court ruled that his use of profanity did not constitute "fighting words" and therefore could not be considered as grounds for arrest or prosecution under Ohio's disorderly conduct statute. This decision reinforced First Amendment protections regarding freedom of speech by asserting that offensive language alone does not necessarily provoke violence and thus cannot be criminalized unless it incites immediate breach of peace or is inherently likely to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance criminalizing disorderly conduct was an infringement on First Amendment rights. He contended that while cities have a legitimate interest in maintaining public order, this should not be used as an excuse to suppress free speech and assembly rights protected by the Constitution. In his view, it is crucial to distinguish between peaceful protest and violent or disruptive behavior; only the latter can justifiably be subject to legal penalties under such ordinances. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of these laws by law enforcement officials who might use them as tools against unpopular groups or individuals expressing controversial views.