Court Opinion

ID: 9605663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:40:17.343113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:42.888295
License: Public Domain

*789McInturff, J.
(concurring) — I also dislike the words which were spoken to an officer of the law carrying out in good faith what he perceived his duty. However, I agree with the majority in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 86 L. Ed. 1031, 62 S. Ct. 766 (1942); Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 135, 39 L. Ed. 2d 214, 220, 94 S. Ct. 970 (1974); and Pasco v. Dixson, 81 Wn.2d 510, 503 P.2d 76 (1972). The words of Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in Lewis are apropos:
The words may well have conveyed anger and frustration without provoking a violent reaction from the officer. Moreover, as noted in my previous concurrence, 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.” 408 U. S. 913. See Model Penal Code § 250.1, Comments 4 (Tent. Draft No. 13, 1961).
Other than the “fighting words” exception discussed in the above case, I am reluctant to place any further restriction on the freedom of speech guaranty in the constitution of our great country. My feelings are best expressed by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
I concur in the result.