Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Disorderly conduct in re profanity at school

Profantiy alleged to be "language meant to provoke violence" -- disorderly? Charge not intended to be a catch-all to punish things that annoy.

Protected speech.

(In its 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled that fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. The court defined them as words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.")

On May 3, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the superior court in Commonwealth v. Hock, finding that the defendant's "single profane remark" did not constitute fighting words. The court ruled that a jury could not reasonably determine her remarks "risked an immediate breach of the peace." Ref -- [Emphasis added in this pation]

Hamilton in re Ohio; History of fighting words doctrine.

Profanity and police. Do they deserve it; and when they are idiots should there be immunity to the citizens?