After being forced outside the barricades, the confrontation escalated as multiple officers allegedly threatened to cite the men based on the subjective reactions of attendees. A female officer stated they would be cited if they said anything “offensive.” When Penkoski responded that offensive speech is protected under the Constitution and is not a crime, the officer claimed it fell under disorderly conduct, stating, “Well, yes, that is the conduct.” [More]
What a sow.
IANAL, but I believe “disorderly conduct” requires some risk or realization of physical harm or property damage. Speech, even “offensive” speech, does not constitute risk or actual harm.
Were it me, I’d ask how I’m supposed to know what the harpies will find “offensive” before I’ve actually said it. A statute that is impossible to comply with is not Constitutionally valid or enforceable.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and all of you God’s creatures in between, is why the Founders insisted on a “Bill of Rights” before they agreed to ratify “The Constitution of the United States.”
No constitutional protections will ever be needed to protect rights that have governmental approval.