Ware v. Denver

10 Citing cases

  1. L.A.T. v. State

    650 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 24 times
    Holding a "`fighting words' finding . . . constitutionally unjustified as a matter of law" where "words neither themselves urged the crowd to respond nor actually had that effect"

    L.A.T.'s remarks, which, in so many both well and ill chosen words, called upon passers-by to witness and protest the arrest of his friend, fall squarely within this principle and are therefore constitutionally protected. See Swann v. City of Huntsville, 455 So.2d 944, 950 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) (defendant became loud and belligerent to investigating officer after accident and shouted "[t]his is some shit. . . . Damn you; you're just doing this because I'm black. You're bringing us back a hundred years"); Ware v. City County of Denver, 182 Colo. 177, 177, 511 P.2d 475, 475 (1973) (defendant commented "fuck you" during political speech at university); People v. Justus, 57 Ill. App.3d 164, 167, 14 Ill.Dec. 836, 838, 372 N.E.2d 1115, 1117 (1978) (defendant became hysterical and began yelling and screaming over parking ticket causing crowd to gather); People v. Gentry, 48 Ill. App.3d 900, 902, 6 Ill.Dec. 617, 618, 363 N.E.2d 146, 147 (1977) (defendant stated to officer who asked why he was in neighborhood, that it was none of his "f- business" adding, "[y]ou police don't do nothing but harass me"); Cavazos v. State, 455 N.E.2d 618, 619-20 (Ind. App. 1983) (defendant protested brother's arrest, calling officer "asshole"); State v. John W., 418 A.2d at 1103, 1108 (defendant protested sister's arrest shouting, "[h]ey turn around and come back here . . . [h]ey, you fucking pig, you fuckin' kangaroo"); State v. Hampton, 66 Ohio App.3d 30, 31 n. 1, 583 N.E.2d 400, 401 n. 1 (1990) (defendant stated to police officer, "just because you've got a f-badge you think you can f

  2. Hershfield v. Commonwealth

    14 Va. App. 381 (Va. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    In Hershfield v. Commonwealth, 417 S.E.2d 876 (Va. App. 1992), a man was convicted of violating a Virginia statute that prohibits abusive language after he told his neighbor to "go f__yourself."

    Where, unlike here, it is necessary to determine whether specific language constitutes "fighting words" the bench and bar of this Commonwealth will find helpful guidance in the following additional cases. Eaton v. City of Tulsa, 415 U.S. 697 (1974); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971); Diehl v. State, 294 Md. 466, 451 A.2d 115, cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1098 (1982); Rozier v. State, 140 Ga. App. 356, 231 S.E.2d 131 (1976); Ware v. City and County of Denver, 182 Colo. 177, 511 P.2d Z75 (1973). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 90 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990) (en banc), the record reflects that some neighborhood enmity had developed between Hershfield and the local government concerning the way Hershfield maintained his home.

  3. Irizarry v. City of Denver

    661 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (D. Colo. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    The Denver ordinance that plaintiffs were convicted under is the "fighting words" exception to the right to free speech. See Ware v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 182 Colo. 177, 511 P.2d 475, 475-76 (1973). A § 1983 judgment in plaintiffs' favor would find that Mr. Irizarry and Mr. Shockley were engaged in constitutionally protected speech, which would invalidate their convictions for disturbing the peace.

  4. Baumann v. City of Denver

    Civil Action No. 14-cv-02751-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam). The Colorado Supreme Court, in previously ruling on the as applied constitutionality of Denver's breach of peace ordinance as it existed in 1973, held that the statute's reach must be limited to "fighting words" in light of the United States Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. Ware v. City and County of Denver,182 Colo. 177, 511 P.2d 475 (Colo. 1973) (ordering dismissal of criminal complaint predicated on hostile utterance of "f*** you" at campus meeting). Fighting words are "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."

  5. Leventhal v. Schaffer

    743 F. Supp. 2d 990 (N.D. Iowa 2010)   Cited 2 times

    "may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity," and, must respect an individual's right to question and challenge an officer); Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir. 2001) (protecting the right to "criticize the police without reprisal"); Webster v. City of New York, 333 F. Supp. 2d 184, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that "criticism of the police officers' actions" is protected speech); MODEL PENAL CODE § 250.2 cmt. 7(iii) (1962) (recommending "insults that merely disturb the policeman's feelings" do not apply to disorderly conduct statutes); Spier v. Elaesser, 267 F. Supp. 2d 806, 811 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (holding that officers violated Spier's First Amendment rights when they arrested him for chanting, "two, four, six, eight, fuck the police state"); Sweatt v. Bailey, 876 F. Supp. 1571, 1580 (M.D. Ala. 1995) (concluding that calling police officer "an ass" does not amount to fighting words); Ware v. City County of Denver, 511 P.2d 475, 475 (Colo. 1973) (holding that replying "Fuck you" to a police officer did not amount to fighting words); People v. Stephen, 581 N.Y.S.2d 981, 985-86 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1992) (holding that use of offensive language and groping of one's genitals at an officer were protected speech); See State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (finding that directing profanities and insults at an officer were not considered fighting words). I am deeply indebted to Professor Ira P. Robbins and his sagaciously enthralling and scholarly law review article, "Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law," which catalogues all of the cases referenced on pages 20-22.

  6. State v. Allcock

    857 A.2d 287 (Vt. 2004)   Cited 4 times
    Discussing the defendant's utterances and noting that “[t]here was also evidence that defendant's behavior alarmed other patrons * * * to the point where they felt compelled to leave. The evidence was thus sufficient to support a finding that an average person, in these circumstances, could have felt provoked to a violent reaction.”

    There are certainly instances in which the profanity and insults used by defendant would be protected speech. See e.g., John W., 418 A.2d at 1108 (holding epithets directed at police officer, as a protest to arrest after officer refused to tell juveniles why they had been pulled over, were constitution ally protected speech); Ware v. City County of Denver, 511 P.2d 475, 476 (Colo. 1973) (ruling defendant's saying "fuck you" during political speech at university was protected speech); In re Louise C., 3 P.3d 1004, 1006 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1999) (holding that juvenile's use of the "F" word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words). But that is not the case here.

  7. In re of S.J.N.-K

    2002 S.D. 70 (S.D. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that student's repeated yelling "fuck you" and use of accompanying obscene gestures amounted to an "ongoing aggression" that fell outside protected free speech

    There may be instances where the profanity used by S.J.N-K. is considered protected speech. See, e.g., State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097 (Me 1980) (holding epithets directed at police officer, as a protest to arrest after officer refused to tell juveniles why they had been pulled over, were not fighting words); Ware v. City and County of Denver, 511 P.2d 475 (Colo 1973) (holding defendant's comment "fuck you" during political speech at university was protected speech). In re Louise C., 3 P.3d 1004 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1999) (holding juvenile's use of "F" word in argument with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words).

  8. People v. Hayden

    190 Colo. 457 (Colo. 1976)   Cited 11 times
    Declaring a disorderly conduct statute prohibiting "coarse and obviously offensive" utterances in public places to be facially overbroad

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire supra, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Bolles v. People, supra; People v. Vaughan, supra; Ware v. Denver, 182 Colo. 177, 511 P.2d 475 (1973). [6] The challenged subsection makes no attempt to limit its application to "fighting words." It applies to the proscribed communications without regard to their probable effect on others.

  9. People v. K.W.

    317 P.3d 1237 (Colo. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    Shuler v. State, 195 Ga.App. at 850, 395 S.E.2d at 28. ¶ 36 However, the juvenile relies on Ware v. City & County of Denver, 182 Colo. 177, 178–79, 511 P.2d 475, 476 (1973), to argue that her adjudication cannot stand. In Ware, a conviction for disorderly conduct for uttering these base obscenities was reversed where there was neither a breach of the peace nor evidence that the defendant attempted to breach the peace.

  10. City of Landrum, v. Sarratt

    352 S.C. 139 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Interpreting the Disorderly Conduct Law

    The fact that words are vulgar or offensive is not alone sufficient to classify them as fighting words, thereby removing them from the protection provided by the First Amendment. SeeGooding v.Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 527 (1972) (striking Georgia statute that, as construed, prohibited the use of words that disgraced or insulted the listener, but did not constitute fighting words); In re Louise C., 3 P.3d 1004, 1005-07 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1999) (holding juvenile's use of "f" word in argument with principal and another student over whether student had cheated her out of money, although offensive and unacceptable, did not constitute fighting words); Ware v. City County of Denver, 511 P.2d 475, 475-76 (Colo. 1973) (stating "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" and holding defendant's statement "f--- you" during political speech at university not fighting words); Downs v. State, 366 A.2d 41, 42-46 (Md. 1976) (stating the defendant's use of profanity and racial epithets in crowded, noisy restaurant in loud voice to fellow diners not fighting words as not directed to anyone in particular; finding the use of the "f" word not punishable absent compelling reasons); City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 469 N.W.2d 808, 811 (N.D. 1991) (in finding "f--- you" not fighting words the court stated: "It is . . . not a crime in this country to be a boor, absent resort to fighting words."). However, the determination of whether profane words constitute fighting words depends upon the circumstances surrounding their utterance.