Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law - Wired

1460 University of California, Davis [Vol. 41:1403
Police officers, notwithstanding their devotion to the duty and
the excellence of their training, are human beings and subject
to the same failings as butchers, bakers and candlestick
makers. We do not see the logic in finding that police officers
can be expected to remain stoic in the face of vitriolic
comments that one would expect to elicit violence from
someone else. Moreover, we think it contrary to public policy
to send out a signal to the general public that policemen are
fair game for any amount of verbal abuse some may choose to
heap upon them. 405
An Ohio court expressly refused to adopt a different standard for
police officers than for average citizens on the ground that such a
standard would create incongruous results and potentially lead to
application of a different standard for professions that “encounter the
uncouth” on a regular basis. 406 The Nebraska Supreme Court similarly
rejected the argument that police officers are “somehow less
susceptible to abuse than other members of the general public.” 407 A
concurring judge found that society does not pay police officers
enough to expect them to “quash, if they could, all the same human
reactions that other people have.” 408
Some courts have stressed the importance of the state’s police power
and the ability of law enforcement officers and other public officials to
carry out their duties without being subjected to “abusive behavior” by
the citizenry. 409 For example, a Florida appellate court stated that,
“[i]f this country is to preserve in its citizens any sense of discipline
and respect for others in our society,” the First Amendment cannot be
interpreted to permit an arrestee to say, “Man, you pussy-assed mother
fucker,” to a police officer. 410 The court found that an evaluation of
405 Pringle v. Court of Common Pleas, 604 F. Supp. 623, 629 (M.D. Pa. 1985).
406 City of Akron v. Bozic, No. 20351, 2001 WL 1240137, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App.
Oct. 17, 2001). The court noted that such professions might include: construction
workers, teachers in high-crime school districts, social workers, and judges.
407 Groves, 363 N.W.2d at 510.
408 City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 469 N.W.2d 808, 814 (N.D. 1991) (VandeWalle,
J., concurring).
409 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kelly, 758 A.2d 1284, 1288-89 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2000) (Stevens, J., concurring) (asserting, where driver gave the middle finger and
said “Fuck you, asshole” to public highway construction workers, that “[p]ublic
employees, volunteer firefighters and emergency personnel” should not be expected to
tolerate offensive language while carrying out their duties of protecting safety of
citizens); Schwartz, supra note 364, at 3 (stating that private citizens have obligation
to treat law enforcement officials with respect).
410 L.J.M. v. State, 541 So. 2d 1321, 1322-23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).