This article demonstrates that rather than misapplying overbreadth analysis, the court in State v. Groves did not apply it at all. It suggests that courts should require that legislatures articulate the goals they seek when they regulate speech based on its content combined with the time, place, and manner in which the speech is delivered. Finally, the article argues that few, if any, disorderly conduct laws are necessary or desirable, and that these statutes are not constitutional either in intent or application.

I. Introduction

II. State v. Groves ... A. Facts ... B. Holding

III. Background of Overbreadth Analysis

IV. Analysis of State v. Groves

V. An Alternative Approach to the "Fighting Words" Problem

VI. Conclusion