红杏视频

Police pulled over Defendant-Appellant Andre Johnson for drifting through a stop sign. Because Mr. Johnson was driving without a license, the police officer decided to tow and impound his car. Mr. Johnson objected to the illegal towing and told the officer he would 鈥渂e seeing鈥� her daughter later and that she shouldn鈥檛 worry because he was a 鈥渓over, not a fighter.鈥� Mr. Johnson was convicted of disorderly conduct based on his use of allegedly obscene language during the traffic stop. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, concluding that his language met the requirements for obscenity, including an appeal to a prurient interest in sex.

The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 红杏视频 of Pennsylvania filed an amicus brief arguing that the disorderly conduct statute should be interpreted to incorporate the constitutional definition of obscenity, including the prurient-interest requirement. Mr. Johnson鈥檚 speech, while offensive, did not satisfy that requirement: it was not the kind of speech that arouses morbid sexual desires in the average person. On the contrary, Mr. Johnson was vehemently criticizing governmental conduct and policy鈥攁 type of speech that lies at the core of First Amendment protections.