Kentucky Moves To Criminalize Taunting Police Officers

Kentucky’s state Senate has passed a bill that raises deep concerns over free speech.  The bill would make it a crime to “taunt” a police officer, an act that would sweep an array of protected speech under the criminal code and would face serious constitutional challenges.

The bill contains the following provision:

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he:

(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior; (b) Makes unreasonable noise; (c) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard, or other emergency;[ or] (d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no  legitimate purpose; or (e) Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.

Police officers are representatives of the state and, as a result, are often the focus of insults and taunts by citizens. Most of us condemn such verbal attacks but they often reflect deeper political or social issues.

Officers are trained to resist impulses that have “a direct tendency to provoke violent response” among citizens. Courts have upheld the right of citizens to insult police, which is an unfortunate aspect of policing. Thus, in 2015, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that police could not arrest a 17-year-old who called them “pigs.” Associate Chief Justice Charles Johnson, in the majority opinion, wrote that when “individuals exercise their constitutional rights to criticize how the police are handling a situation, they cannot be concerned about risking a criminal conviction for obstruction.”

In Kentucky, the sponsor, Republican state Sen. Danny Carroll, said that he was responding to protests last summer and had a particular sensitivity to such abuse as a former police officer.

Carroll’s motivation is commendable but I have serious doubts that his legislation is constitutional. We ask a great deal from our officers. However, this legislation would curtail core protected speech under an ambiguous criminal standard.

97 thoughts on “Kentucky Moves To Criminalize Taunting Police Officers”

  1. Off topic. Bitcoin. A seven year old boy asked me some questions at the public library yesterday which I could not answer. “Is a Bitcoin worth it’s weight in gold? If not then what does it have value in or for? Does it represent some stock holding? Like shares in stock owning warehouses full of sellable goods? No. Then why does it trade at almost fifty thousand for one friggin coin?”

    1. Bitcoin owners. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. Hustling round Wall Street in their alligator shoes.

      1. Today there is a finance news article about Warren Buffett and his position against shit coins.

  2. When States and the U.S. Congress proceed to egregiously and treasonously violate the U.S. Constitution,

    and the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to support the U.S. Constitution,

    U.S. Citizens are left with no alternatives.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and

    to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776


    The Supreme Court was established to support the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court is the enemy which is destroying the U.S. Constitution.

    The Supreme Court refuses to exert its power of “judicial review.”

    The Supreme Court has “…the judicial Power of the United States,….”

    The Supreme Court has no power to legislate, modify legislation or, otherwise, “interpret” legislation.

    The Supreme Court must assure that actions comport with law and it must declare all acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution void.

    The Supreme Court must do its constitutional duty and strike down this unconstitutional Kentucky law abridging the freedom of speech, including the freedom to speak critically of government.

    Marbury v Madison

    The Supreme Court has the power of “judicial review” and the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation by Congress et al.

    Article 3, Section 1

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,…

    1st Amendment

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…[will]…do…what their powers do not authorize,…[and]…what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. NEWSFLASH –

      Feinstein BANS 205 rifles.

      That constitutes “INFRINGING” on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which, incidentally, is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

      Someone knock on the Supreme Court’s dressing room door and tell them they’re on!

    2. Hey, cops, America loves you.

      Deal with it.

      If you don’t love America and its Constitution, remember the old adage, “Get up on Old Paint and get the —- where you ain’t.”

      I hear communist China is nice this time of year – so the Uyghurs say.

    1. Free speech vs. taunting and bullying by a hysterical, incoherent and rude party, is that what you said???

  4. “Makes unreasonable noise:” The usual metric for noise unit is dB. Lacking a dB number this law lacks a definition, is 100% subjective and I hope therefor unenforceable.

  5. I don’t see how this law could stand constitutional muster. Protesters should not be allowed to target officers by throwing things, hitting or inflicting pain (even putting a bullhorn and yelling in it next to the officer’s ear). Regulating the kind of speech, though, is a bridge too far.

  6. Off topic. Suddenlink. Pull out now like you’re father should have.

  7. I’m glad to see disorderly conduct law updated in this manner. There is a difference between peaceable assembly for redress of grievances and distorting such to provoke, insult and humiliate a police officer. We’ll have better protest marches with this kind of limit placed on the anarchist-agitator.

    I find it curious that JT works (as a lawyer) in courtroom settings where standards of civility and decorum are enforced under peril of jail, yet he prefers to expose police officers to no such protections. It strikes me as elitist on JT’s part.

    We’re seeing an attempt to reinstitute norms of civility in public behavior. I accept that some Kentucky police officer with a thin skin may go overboard in making a disorderly conduct arrest, but I have no problem with that, because a body-cam as evidence will likely become a requirement, and First Amendment defenses in Court will be upheld where it was only the policy idea being expressed (in a civil, respectful manner) that was found disorderly.

    We need to fine tune the law in oder to protect the 1st Amerndment right to peaceably assemble for redresss of grievances, a right that is under subversive, clandestine attack by militant activists and troublemakers.

    1. S. Meyer, you are aware that Kentucky has republican legislators and the state house and senate is controlled by republicans. So yes, the fascists are at it again.

        1. “Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time.”

          Fishwings, how will you do that? Will you take off your clothes? Will you sell your principles and self esteem to another? I’m not interested in sinking to your level.

          1. FishWings is above you, Allan, so you could only rise to his level, but I doubt you will.

            1. Fishwings is an ignorant poster like yourself. I wouldn’t compare either of you to anyone that is principled, intelligent, and honest

      1. You are aware that fascists aren’t motivated by political parties, right? Political parties are motivated by fascists. Political parties function as covers for fascists and that works because many in our electorate are just stupid enough to believe whatever their party tells them to believe.

          1. Thank you for identifying yourself as one of those electorate I mentioned. Not that there was any doubt. Well done indeed!

          2. Before you can judge Trump, Fishwings, you have to have some principles. Until then stick with Anonymous and watch another rerun of Cuomo getting his Emmy. That seems to get Anonymous off.

      2. Fishwings, you don’t understand because you have no principles. Politically you are a “whore” who is willing to trade principle for personal benefit. I judge a politician based on his principles and what he actually does.

        We have laws to protect people whether they are policemen or protestors. If a protester hinders a lawful police action they can be detained or arrested. We don’t need new laws to abridge our freedom of speech.

  8. You don’t have to criminalize everything that’s wrong. I agree with Turley on this one, that it contradicts the First Amendment.

    I only think people should be charged if they directly interfere with police work, or if they physically touch them, such as shoving, throwing drinks in their faces, spitting on them, or dumping buckets of liquid on them.

    But words…no. That’s protected.

    1. Provocative insults?….fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.

      There is another fundamental right at risk here, the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. I see this common-sense use of disorderly conduct law as essential to protect that basic right from subversive attack by anarchists and militants.

      1. “fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment.”

        Insults generally aren’t fighting words, though specific insults might be. If it’s legal to express a given insult to a non-police officer, it’s legal to express that same insult to a police officer.

        1. How about to a Judge while in a Court of Law? Why should that person enjoy protections from verbal abuse but not a cop?

          1. Contempt of court is distinct from fighting words.

            The ability of a judge to hold someone in contempt of court was established via the Judiciary Act of 1789, signed into law by Pres. George Washington.

          2. Pigs enforce the law while the judge administers the required justice after the police arrest a suspect. To disrespect the judge is to disrespect one hired to administer justice.

            Pigs are trained daily in mortal combat with every known tool of force and defense at their disposal. To compare that to a judge who went to law school is incredibly naive or outright dishonest or both. That said if I was judge I’d have a deadly weapon at arm’s length and train regularly in its use. And I’d also probably have some non-deadly weapon like a taser, etc.

            1. Wow , so you equate police with pigs…you need help . In the real world the pigs are our demorat politicos…they are the Orwellian pigs Orwell warned us about. And your pig vomit is in the potus chair at present. A puppet pig , delusional and senile being lead by his snout by his party’s puppet masters fueled by foreign cash… principally Chinese.

        1. “So, the attacks in DC January 6 by militants was peaceable assembly?”

          So, the attacks in major cities across the US last Spring and Summer was peaceable assembly?

          Did that thought occur to you while writing that sentence?

          It’s obvious that you are a child.

            1. The troll without a name that uses pretend friends is calling yet another a troll. A nasty small character that anonymous is.

              Has Anonymous proven himself to be a provider of fact? No. He is wrong on almost every significant event. That is because instead of learning what is happening he is sucking on the Emmy of Cuomo.

          1. Be careful or Fishwings will attempt to “taunt” you like she threatened to do to me. She sells her principles to the highest bidder so without a profit in taunting another, she fades away. I don’t know if she is able to hold two facts at the same time so don’t expect any answer to your question.

  9. What Antifa and the fascist left has done in all of our cities was create an unsafe work environment and unsafe personal space for police officers by hiding behind free-speech rights. Antifa adopted the approach of screaming/yelling/taunting at officers within an unacceptable distance – often literally within inches of the officer. That created an untenable work environment for the police. No one should have to work under those conditions.

    Maybe tweaks are needed but this legislation seems is not meant to discourage free speech but to ensure the safety of police by physical proximity. How about: “Accosts, insults, taunts, challenges, or gestures towards a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words within 3 feet of the officer, or by other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.” If someone came up to you within 3 feet and starting yelling, spitting, and gesturing towards you,it would be harrassment and punishable by law. Officers need the same protections

    1. Spitting isn’t speech.
      Being quite close to someone isn’t speech.

      Feel free to regulate behavior (within legal bounds), but regulating speech in this way is unconstitutional.

    2. How highly educated are American women who became men, stopped making Americans and compelled the populating of America with heterogeneous and wholly unassimilable foreign invaders?

      How highly educated are American women who have set in motion the process of American subsumption and extinction?

      It is coherent and rational, however, that the best/worst enemy is a always a highly educated enemy, so stipulated.

      And to think the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) compelled this “…fundamentally transforming…” of America through gynocentric divorce laws, generational welfare, affirmative

      action privilege, quotas, food stamps, EBT cards, WIC, SNAP, LIHEAP, CCDF, Obamacare, oh, and all that pesky “sexual assault” law stuff, which that pesky old “nature/God” dreamed up, whereby men, for

      absolutely no coherent or discernible rationale, just love everything about women (how terrible right?), etc.

      1. I assume that you’re involuntarily celibate, George.

        You complain about women’s fertility when the real problem is that you’re a misogynist.

        1. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

          – Anonymous

          I don’t assume, I know that you are erroneous and childish.

          The American fertility rate IS in a “death spiral.”

          More Americans die than are born.

          The population is infinitesimal; deleteriously so compared to America’s potential enemy, China, and its potential economic competitor, India.

          According to your calculus, I would not be a misogynist but a misextinctionist in that I hate extinction, especially that of America.

          Your motto: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull—-.

          Your defects revealed; Mission Accomplished.

          Women are not my focus, herein, while unconstitutional legislative favoritism, welfare, affirmative action, etc., aka communism, are.

          The Founders were geniuses who did not allow women to vote and now you know why.

          You need the playing field tilted in your direction.

          In freedom you lose, so you choose communism to transform you into winners – you can be proud.

          And I do apologize for engaging an unarmed opponent; something I usually avoid.

        2. God made women the bearers of children; the perpetuators of species.

          God loves children…lots and lots of children…up to 25 children per woman.

          That pesky God is a misogynist.

          Did I get that right?

  10. IMO the problem with the law is it apparently confuses the term “accost” with physical action but does not actually address non-physical forms of job interference. All the definitions I have seen are “accost” is verbal. So the law does not address the close, non-physical interference that can disrupt officers trying to do their jobs, such as crowding a person without touching to interfere. Another poster mentioned distraction as job interference, and that should also be addressed. Calls for interrupting the officer are another form of interference, for the officer’s attention in a potentially double dangerous situation must be split. An officer may be trained to ignore insults, but at some point, the verbal and close non-physical actions of bystanders do interfere with the performance of duty. I think this is a good start on a law sorely needed.

    1. Adding these forms of interference are exactly what many of these “protesters” are trained to do while avoiding arrest.

  11. “or other physical contact”?!

    That’s very strange.

    Verbally insulting an officer is one thing. But making physical contact is quite another.

    I can see why making physical contact with an officer should be illegal. Likewise for spitting at, or on, an officer.

    But the rest just falls under, “Sticks and stones”. Which is something many of the spoiled little millennial snowflakes need to learn.

  12. Important issue of course. Worth noting, in the case of E.J.J ( the case brought in the Supreme Court of Washington) it wasn’t solely ab issue of protected free speech. But, the main one, was the fact, that E.J.J wanted to watch the police action(being afraid for the safety and sake of his sister). He got an order or instruction, to stay inside his room, and shut the door. But, he had refused to shut the door of his room. His refusal was lawful.

    I quote judge Gonzalez( concurring):

    ” He refused an unlawful order to close his own door. He refused to turn away. For this, he was arrested, charged, and convicted.”


  13. I do not agree with the professor on this one. It is one thing to film the police, but quite another to interfere with their job. They are in potentially dangerous situations, and they do not need the distraction. For one thing, who knows when the taunting will turn to rock throwing or an attack.

    Let us imagine this scenario: Professor Turley is in his Constitutional Law class, and in the middle of his 4th Amendment lecture, several students begin to taunt him. There he is, discussing probable cause and good faith stuff, and several students are hurling gibes at him continuously. Do you think the Professor could continue his lecture??? I don’t. Plus, have you ever been hit in the head with a gibe??? Because those things can really sting!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. It’s very easy: speech is legal, rock throwing is not.

      It’s legal to taunt a professor too, though you may be tossed out of class for interfering with the other students’ learning.

      1. And . . . finish your thought here. If a student could be tossed out of class for interfering, then someone interfering with a police officer should be – – – – arrested and thrown in the cooler for a few days, and made to pay a fine.

        See, you really do agree with me!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. “See, you really do agree with me!”

          See, you really are a liar!

          If you don’t understand the difference between arresting someone and not arresting them (asking a student to leave a classroom), you’re less intelligent than I’d assumed. But I think you do understand and are choosing to ignore it.

            1. I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference between legal and illegal consequences.

              I’ve long felt sorry for you, Squeakster, because you’ve long demonstrated that you’re a bigot.

    2. –Totally agree with Professor Turley’s assessment of this bill. It’s the kind of legislation Democrats are on the verge of enacting as they attempt to criminalize dissent and stifle free speech and First Amendment rights.

      –“Professor Turley is in his Constitutional Law class, and in the middle of his 4th Amendment lecture, several students begin to taunt him. There he is, discussing probable cause and good faith stuff, and several students are hurling gibes at him continuously. Do you think the Professor could continue his lecture??? I don’t. Plus, have you ever been hit in the head with a gibe??? Because those things can really sting!”

      This is not analogous.

      In most college classrooms, professors’ lectures involve the verbal articulation/presentation of course content. Speech is a crucial part of the professor’s classroom work requirement. So, a major disruption of a professor’s spoken lecture or speech is tantamount to interference with the professor’s ability to perform their work.

      If a classroom session involves a discussion component, there are guidelines for in-class discussions. Typically, they need to be on topic: related to the issue in focus or related to the lecture. There is a lot of latitude when it comes to what is an acceptable comment in an in-class discussion session. If a student’s comments devolve from mere disagreement with the professor’s lecture points to outright ad hominem verbal assaults on the professor, then the professor is entirely justified in asking the student to cease and ultimately to leave the classroom. Because now the student is effectively interfering with the professor’s ability to perform their work and interfering with the discussion session. If the student refuses to leave, the professor can call campus security.

      Delivering speeches to an audience or engaging in a discussion about a topic with a group is not part of a police officer’s typical work requirement. So, taunting them verbally is not equivalent to interfering with a professor’s work. Police need to be (if they are not already) trained to realize that members of the public may deliberately taunt them verbally with the aim of eliciting a violent response from the officer. Officers just need more training to deflect this.

    3. Turley is not trained daily in mortal combat, with a bullet proof vest, gun, baton, taser, handcuffs, etc. Your analogy is frankly incredibly stupid.

    4. You disingenuously conflate free speech with physical assault or psychical interference.

      Freedom of Speech was never intended to constitute physical assault or physical interference.

      Laws cannot be enforced against hypothetical future potentialities (e.g. 70% of prisoners are colored, ergo, colored people must be arrested).

      Freedom of Speech TRUMPS all other considerations – if you can’t cope with that pesky Constitution, don’t be a cop – if you’re the sensitive type, don’t be a cop, join a ballet company, sweetheart.

      Suggestion: Allow free speech and allow police room to execute their duties – allow free speech a reasonable and appropriate distance from police.

    5. Squeeky, your analogy only works if the taunting were preventing (not distracting) law enforcement from carrying out their duties. They’re trained to deal with distractions. But if they for instance could not hear commands or were experiencing physical harm because some asshat had a bullhorn blaring, then they would be justified in silencing it. They are also trained on how to respond when the taunting evolves into physical assault. The actual root cause exists in something else. Ideally, law enforcement has clearly defined rules of engagement and they will have the full support of the local politicians to exercise it. But when law enforcement is actually threatened if they use the appropriate rules of engagement by the political establishment, that is the distraction that is creating the problem. This puts law enforcement in a vise between citizens and politicians. The solution is not to infringe the rights of citizens, it’s to remove the politicians violating their oaths of office.

  14. Waiting for Prof Turley to comment on Georgetown Law School’s firing of professor Sandra Sellers for lamenting (privately) that many of her Black students are not doing well academically. Turley is also employed at Georgetown Law. Is he courageous enough to speak out on this?

    1. She was an adjunct, and it wasn’t private. It was in a Zoom meeting, and the video was posted publicly.

      Georgetown Law Dean William M. Treanor: “I have further reviewed the incident and have now spoken to Professor Sellers and Professor Batson, giving each the opportunity to provide any additional context. I informed Professor Sellers that I was terminating her relationship with Georgetown Law effective immediately. During our conversation, she told me that she had intended to resign. As a result of my decision, Professor Sellers is no longer affiliated with Georgetown Law.”

      “Sellers showed The New York Times her resignation letter in which she said she was “deeply sorry for my hurtful and misdirected remarks.” “I would never do anything to intentionally hurt my students or Georgetown Law and wish I could take back my words,” Ms. Sellers wrote according to NYT. “Regardless of my intent, I have done irreparable harm and I am truly sorry for this.””

      1. Lost in all of the regrets and apologies is the fact that the professor was simply telling the truth.

        1. You have no idea whether it’s the truth, since you’re not working with her students. By her own statement, she also has non-Black students at the bottom of the class, yet she doesn’t lament this. I wonder why not.

          1. “You have no idea whether it’s the truth . . .”

            I do:

            “You know what? I hate to say this,” Ms. Sellers said on the video. “I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks — happens almost every semester.

            And here’s Eugene Volokh’s take:

            “[T]he phenomenon of a disproportionate number of black students being near the bottom of the class at many law schools appears to be real.”


            Affirmative action lowers the standards for those students. That’s the whole point of those racist programs. The obvious predictors then come true: Those students who are less prepared, end up in the classroom, well, less prepared — and don’t perform as well. Then in a “let’s-evade-reality” culture, you get fired for stating the truth.

            1. I’m not contesting that she said it. I’m pointing out that just because someone claims something, that alone doesn’t guarantee it’s true. You’re intelligent enough to understand that people regularly make false statements, sometimes by mistake and sometimes out of dishonesty.

              Her statement might be true. But Young doesn’t know whether it’s true, and you and I don’t either.

              “Affirmative action lowers the standards for those students.”

              No matter your admission standards, if you rank students (e.g., with GPAs or test scores), there will always be students at the bottom of the ranking, unless all of the students have identical scores. That’s the nature of ranking a set. The issue is whether students at the bottom are still qualified and whether there are effective ways to help them do better in class.

              ” here’s Eugene Volokh’s take:”

              Volokh doesn’t know the status of Sellers’ students either, and he hasn’t made a statement about her students. He made a statement about data from the 1990s.

              1. To quote your sillyness :

                “No matter your admission standards, if you rank students (e.g., with GPAs or test scores), there will always be students at the bottom of the ranking, unless all of the students have identical scores. That’s the nature of ranking a set. The issue is whether students at the bottom are still qualified and whether there are effective ways to help them do better in class.”

                You completely miss and or willingly do not address the elephant in the room. Chiefly that Affirmative action puts race ahead of brains at every point. When intelligence is ‘diluted’ to accommodate ‘color’…..only one thing truly suffers…..intelligence. You are allowing people to move on up that have not earned said spot through merit by intelligence , but simply by quota by color. Our student quality suffers proportionately . You can not even argue otherwise.
                And seeing how teachers unions and the federal NEA are absolutely meddling with what is taught and how it taught…the end being a dumbing downof students for “the greater common good and oh yeah fairness”. Its so obvious the goobermint is hell bent on creating ignorant sheeple instead of intelligent & critical thinking citizens. And using affirmative action and anti-racist hyperbole to do it…by any means necessary to the ruling class you so grovel to.

  15. There is always someone – whether on the right or the left – who will try to impose his views on the rest.

    Just like the academic censors that Turley often writes about, the consequences of this censorship are severe.

    Italy has kept the old Mussolini laws about insulting a cop.

    Once you see a video of a citizen standing in a Carabiniere barracks abjectly apologizing to the assembled troops (in lieu of jail time), you understand the consequences of the law. Better a few offended cops than that power.

  16. Already police departments across the country are struggling to fill their ranks. If this is turned down by the Courts, it will spell the end of high-quality recruits. Anyone who interferes with the duties of a policeman should be considered for detention, because of not only physical assault but also psychological.

    1. If insulting police officers was the root cause of officers leaving the force or diminished recruitment, then those ranks would have been empty centuries ago. Insults are not reducing the ranks. Public policy that puts their lives at risk does. Public policy that undermines the mission of law enforcement is antithetical to the oath these officers take to serve and protect. You cannot expect them to go into harm’s way to enforce the law without the full support of those ordering them to go. Police officers will go and they will endure insults, knowing they will be fully supported if the insults turn into physical obstruction of their duties. Lacking that support is the insult and we already have laws on the books to deal with that…removing those policy-makers from office.

    2. I would bet 2-1 odds every major city still have hire lists with over 1000 persons wanting entry level jobs. This insult law is insulting.

  17. I fully agree with Prof. Turley. The law is a good one, that needs to be re-done, to eliminate the ambiguous areas where free speech is involved. If not done, the Courts will undoubtedly declare the saw unconstitutional.

    Good intentions sometimes lead to bad law…but I do applaud the attempt to stop the disrespect for our police.

Comments are closed.