concurring in the result.
Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), the issue in a case of this kind is whether “fighting words” were used. Here a police officer, while in the performance of his duty, was called “g— d— m-f-” police.
If these words had been addressed by one citizen to another, face to face and in a hostile manner, I would have no doubt that they would be “fighting words.” But the situation may be different where such words are addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code § 250.1, Comments 14 (Tent. Draft No. 13, 1961).
*914I see no genuine overbreadth problem in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, ante, p. 903.
I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Burger, see ante, p. 902.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Rehnquist, see ante, p. 909.]