Deny any liability or wrongdoing
The ACLU has drawn the Pennsylvania State Police to a settlement over citations for “obscene” language, but the state police deny any wrongdoing or liability for their actions.
“We enforced the law and we will continue to enforce the law,” said Lt. Myra Taylor, spokesperson for the Pennsylvania State Police. “We appreciate the information that was brought up and we did settle out of court but we are in no way going to stop enforcing the law.”
In a settlement reached earlier this month, the state police agreed to provide training for state police officers to better educate them on the correct meaning and application of the law as it applies to “obscene” language.
The court case stemmed from an incident in which a woman claimed her car was sideswiped by another car and subsequently called the other driver a pejorative name. She was then cited by the state police officer who appeared at the scene.
Fines for obscene language can reach $300 or up to 90 days in jail, but the definition of what “obscene” language is varies by party. According to the state police, over 700 of these cases were logged within a one year period.
Mary Catherine Roper, the ACLU lawyer who pursued the case, said if a word appears in a legal film, it is not obscene. It is still free speech, protected by the First Amendment.
“You would have to be describing a scene of just graphic sexual depravity and violence,” said Ms. Roper, “that if that were translated into a visual a movie it wouldn’t be an R – it wouldn’t be an NC-17 – it wouldn’t even be an X. It would be illegal. Anything you have shouted at anyone in anger is not legally obscene.”
Lt. Taylor said state police are taught obscene language occurs within a context, and if they fine an individual for obscene language, they must document what happened, including the “totality of the circumstances” and any “invitation to an immediate breach of the peace.”
She also said the definition of obscene must meet a contemporary community standard, “maybe a crude sexual conduct way, it lacks any kind of serious value,” said Lt. Taylor. “It has to be really degrading…combined with that breach of peace.” Many of the cases, she said, involve domestic violence or other breaches of the peace that result in arrests.
ACLU-State Police Settlement [pdf]
“We wouldn’t be there [for freedom of speech],” said Lt. Taylor. “We are called to far more serious situations. Unfortunately the situation’s been taken a lot out of context. With freedom comes responsibility… it gets tough.”
Ms. Roper said in Pennsylvania there has been “an ongoing and significant misuse of the law” as it relates to obscene language, and the ACLU lawsuit involved several cases litigated together. There are four clauses under which individuals can be cited or arrested for breaking the peace: fighting, excessive noise, using obscene language or using obscene gestures.
“Police are citing people under this provision,” said Ms. Roper. “The problem is consistency with the First Amendment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already said the word ‘obscene’ in that statute means legally obscene.”
The court definition for obscene language appears in the U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. California, which defines it as “[appealing] to the prurient interest…whether it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by an applicable state law, and…whether the speech, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
But the First Amendment states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,” and does not make an exception for “prurient” speech.
“It comes back to the First Amendment and to police training,” said Ms. Roper. “This isn’t new…The point is explaining that to police officers. There’s lots of laws you don’t necessarily know the tactical details of.”
Ms. Roper said the ACLU settlement requires the state police to update their course materials and send out a bulletin to state police officers alerting them to the correct definition of the law. In addition, the state police will no longer be allowed to issue fines to people who use swear words in public. For two years supervisors must review citations to make they are responsible for ensuring they are issued correctly and dismiss invalid citations.
Local police, however, are a still different matter.
“We still have small police forces all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that do not seem to understand what this law does and doesn’t mean,” said Ms. Roper. “I really hope that the publicity over this case has encouraged a number of them to change their own practices before they find themselves in court but I do expect we’ll be suing a few more.”
