Reply #49: SCOTUS has ruled that First Amendment protects speech to the police

[Gothmog]

Here is a good thread on this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6137980 Here is a good article from Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2223379

What, exactly, is disorderly conduct?

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

See also Houston v. Hill http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=451

The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner ... interrupts "an officer. The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally <482 U.S. 451, 463> to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state