Court Opinion

ID: 9682624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:14:57.797597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.494657
License: Public Domain

GUNN, Judge,
concurring in result.
The blazingly obscene and foulmouthed utterances of the defendant in this instance are an absolute violation of § 574.01.1(b), RSMo 1978. And I have no doubt that the gutterbred comments showered forth for an elderly lady to absorb and endure were precisely the subject matter of legislative concern and for punishment — a seemingly legitimate interest for the General Assembly. But see Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1093 (8th Cir.1973).
The terms brought forth were without any meaning of gentle affection or of good manners by any standard. No, indeed. The spoken word here to fall on a lady’s ears was offensive, loud and grossly abusive by any consideration. Defendant’s talk included the magic word which results in automatic ejection when spoken by a player, coach or manager in the presence of no less than the hardbitten arbiters of the major league baseball diamond. And it is difficult to consider defendant’s expressions of low indecency as being “one man’s lyric.” Tollett, 485 F.2d at 1093.
So it appears that there was a clear violation of § 574.010.1(b) — the peace disturbance statute. And it does seem unjust that innocent parties are forced to bear *28defendant’s vulgar conduct so that he may have his freedom of expression. But, as discussed by the majority opinion, Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972) severely restricts legislation against opprobrious, vulgar or abusive language to those instances of the so-called “fighting words” situations — which is obviously not the case here. Thus, I am constrained to concur in the overbreadth result reached by the majority.