You may be caught up in a Lehigh County criminal case where you said something out loud and are now charged. There are freedom of speech issues that your Lehigh County criminal lawyer should know and be ready to defend you on. Sometimes, this happens with the charge of disorderly conduct.
In Cohen v. California, the appellee argued that the four-letter expletive imprinted on appellant's jacket was "offensive conduct" that might provoke others to violence against appellant. His jacket said "Fuck the Draft". The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, noting that appellant did not engage in any act of violence, or make any loud noises, when he wore the jacket in the municipal courthouse as an expression of his feelings toward the Vietnam War and the draft. A conviction resting solely upon "speech" could be justified under the First and Fourteenth Amendment only for the manner that the freedom was exercised, but not for the content of the message. The Court observed that the statute was not limited to protecting courtroom decorum, nor directed at erotic messages, and the message did not consist of "fighting words," directed at readers of the message. That the message was thrust upon unsuspecting viewers, who were not captive and could avert their eyes, did not entitle appellee to protect the sensitive by curtailing all such speech. Moreover, no evidence demonstrated that anyone was prepared to strike out at whomever assaulted their sensibilities.
But remember, disorderly conduct is constitutional in Pennsylvania. In Commonwealth v. Mastrangelo, after screaming epithets at a meter maid who was performing her official duty, appellant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5503 and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5101. Appellant sought review of his convictions, alleging that § 5503 was facially invalid on the ground of vagueness, or, in the alternative, was invalid as applied to him. Appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that the disorderly conduct statute, § 5503, was not facially invalid for vagueness because a man of common intelligence would understand what was and what was not made criminal under the statute, especially given that the statute could not be used to punish anyone exercising a protected right under U.S. Const. amend. I. The court held that § 5503 was not invalid as applied to appellant because he was not exercising any constitutionally protected right when he loudly hurled epithets, which met the definition of fighting words, at the meter maid. The court affirmed appellant's convictions, holding that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain them.
What about police and cursing at them? In 1982, it was not allowed. In Commonwealth v. Pringle, the case involved in an incident wherein the defendant protested a friend's arrest by repeatedly shouting crude epithets at the arresting officers in front of a large crowd. She was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct. This case, however, has been repeatedly questioned. For example, Commonwealth v. Bryner in 1995 is a case that does just so. In this case, the appellant was convicted of the summary offense of disorderly conduct, under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5503, as the result of his refusal to exit an auction barn following a request to leave and after appellant, in a loud voice, twice told the auction's owner to "go to hell." After considering the Miller test adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for guidance in defining obscenity, the court held that it was clear that the epithet hurled in this case did not, in any way, appeal to anyone's prurient interests. The court therefore found that appellant's speech was not obscene and thus did not violate the disorderly conduct statute. Because appellant's words fell short of that language proscribed in Miller, the court reversed the conviction.