First Amendment and Fighting Words
- Submitted by: guccinikk
- Views: 521
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 02/13/2013 03:24 PM
- Pages: 15
- Report this Essay
First Amendment and Fighting Words
Issue (1):
Are police officers afforded qualified immunity for First Amendment free speech violations?
Brief Answer:
It depends. Courts assess qualified immunity claims against government officials based on Saucier’s two prong test. The court must determine (1) whether plaintiff’s claims establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was established at the time of the alleged violation. Qualified immunity attempts to balance the compensation of one who suffers an injury due to conduct of an official and to protect the government’s capacity to perform essential functions. In Hilton’s case, it is quite doubtful that the officer can prevail on a claim of qualified immunity.
Issue (2):
Was Hilton’s constitutional right to free speech violated by his arrest for disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice?
Brief Answer:
Yes. Hilton’s referral to the police officer as an “asshole” qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment. His words did not constitute “fighting words,” or speech unprotected by the First Amendment. To prevail on the charge of disorderly conduct, the state would have to show that Hilton uttered the offensive language from a public place. He remained on his own property throughout the ordeal. The charge of obstruction of justice requires that force be used by a defendant while interfering in official police business. Hilton refrained from utilizing any force. Therefore, the officer violated Hilton’s First Amendment right to free speech by arresting him on these charges.
Facts:
James Hilton approached police officers outside of his home in Nashville last month after perceiving the officers roughing up his neighbor, Billy Baxton. He inquired as to what was going on and officers responded by telling him to go back inside and mind his own business. After informing the officers that he had a right to stand upon his own property, he advised them to respect...
Issue (1):
Are police officers afforded qualified immunity for First Amendment free speech violations?
Brief Answer:
It depends. Courts assess qualified immunity claims against government officials based on Saucier’s two prong test. The court must determine (1) whether plaintiff’s claims establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was established at the time of the alleged violation. Qualified immunity attempts to balance the compensation of one who suffers an injury due to conduct of an official and to protect the government’s capacity to perform essential functions. In Hilton’s case, it is quite doubtful that the officer can prevail on a claim of qualified immunity.
Issue (2):
Was Hilton’s constitutional right to free speech violated by his arrest for disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice?
Brief Answer:
Yes. Hilton’s referral to the police officer as an “asshole” qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment. His words did not constitute “fighting words,” or speech unprotected by the First Amendment. To prevail on the charge of disorderly conduct, the state would have to show that Hilton uttered the offensive language from a public place. He remained on his own property throughout the ordeal. The charge of obstruction of justice requires that force be used by a defendant while interfering in official police business. Hilton refrained from utilizing any force. Therefore, the officer violated Hilton’s First Amendment right to free speech by arresting him on these charges.
Facts:
James Hilton approached police officers outside of his home in Nashville last month after perceiving the officers roughing up his neighbor, Billy Baxton. He inquired as to what was going on and officers responded by telling him to go back inside and mind his own business. After informing the officers that he had a right to stand upon his own property, he advised them to respect...