Based on the facts presented in the scenario, the defendants are not likely to win their challenge. Indeed, relevant facts of the case state that a group of friends attended a football game, and at different time during the game shouted insults and abusive comments at people passing by them, as well as, at police that were eventually called the arrest them. Consequently, the group was charged with creating a public disturbance through their disorderly conduct. The group challenges the charges, arguing that they were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.
Under the state criminal code, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if among other actions: use abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault (WSL, 1975). The term “abusive language” for purposes of the application of this law refers to any languages or words that the speaker knows could or is likely to provoke a violent reaction in a listener (WSL, 1975). That is to say abusive language is the same as “fighting words.” (WSL, 1975).
Applying the law to the conduct of the group, it is clear that they engaged in disorderly conduct. First, as mentioned above, the groups used abusive language that targeted passers-bys who were fans of the rival team. The specific words that they used included “you guys suck” and “your team is a bunch of inbred hicks.” The first phrase, on its own, does not rise to the level of abusive language, but in combination with the comment about “inbred hicks” there is the potential that someone that heard the comment would be angered enough to start a fight with the group. Moreover, the fact that the comments were made a football game, were actions on the field have historically tended to incite people to lash out against fans of opposing teams, heightens even the rather mundane comment of “you guy suck” to the level of abusive. The level of abusiveness of the language could have been further increased depending on the history of rivalry between the teams, whether the group of friends were supporting the winning or losing team, or whether the game was happening in the hometown of the group of friends.
Second, even in the unlikely event that a court might not find that the comments the group made at the game were abusive; it would surely find that their comments to the police were. To be sure, the calling of the police “dumb” and there mentioned of police and “donut shops” was clearly abusive in that it would likely lead an arresting police officer to act more aggressively than normal in taking them into custody. That is to say, whereas the first set of comments at the football game could be argued as being generalized, the comments made to the police were direct attacks on who they are as professionals.
The group claims that the First Amendment, is a defense to the charge. While the First Amendment does protect a person’s freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has help that not all speech is protected. According to the Court, language in which the government has a compelling interest to restrict, cannot be protected. Fighting words, is one category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, as it is reasonable that in an effort to keep the community safe and peaceful, the government is allowed to restrict language that tends to start fights and/or facilitates violence. That is to say as long as the restrictions on the abusive language are not so broad or vague as to make it hard for a person to tell what is illegal or that it includes all forms of criticism. Consequently, since the group’s comments can be viewed as fighting words, they have no defense to the charge of disorderly conduct. The regulation of the abusive languages is specifically tailored so as not to be either to broad or too vague.
References
Washington State Legislature (WSL). Washington laws, 1975. Retrieved from http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1975ex1c260.pdf?cite=1975%201st%20ex.s.%20c%20260%20%C2%A7%209A.80.010.
