EARTHman

[T]he First Amendment protects a significant
amount of verbal criticism and challenge
directed at police officers. "Speech is
often provocative and challenging. . . . [But
it] is nevertheless protected against
censorship or punishment, unless shown likely
to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious substantive evil that rises far above
public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

When a prosecutor resigns in the middle of trial...it's because they recognize the misconduct and want to distance themselves from criminal prosecution and or being disbarred and or sanctioned. Our judicial brance is corrupt all over America. Look at our prison population compared to the world.

Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because
"a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"

In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction under a Louisiana statute.

Lousiana law against cursing at police overturned as overly broad


Justice William Brennan wrote the decision for five members of the Court, ruling that the law at issue had been overly broad in that it associated all use of “obscene or opprobrious language” directed to police officers as a form of fighting words.

The GOP, defund police. Finally, we agree on something.