Does the First Amendment protect the right of the people to approach law enforcement and criticize police actions in an opprobrious manner?

Question Presented The freedom of individuals to verbally oppose or challenge police action without risking arrest is one of the principle characters which distinguishes a free nation from a police state. Disorderly conduct statutes must be narrowly tailored, as to only criminalize speech with threatens an immediate breach of the peace.. This Court has consistently invalidated laws which provide police with unfettered discretion to arrest individual for words or conduct which merely annoys or offends them. This Court has also suggested law enforcement may be held to a higher degree of restraint as to what consists “fighting words”. While the Federal Courts have overwhelmingly accepted this Court’s suggestion and held law enforcement to a higher degree of restraint, state courts are fiercely divided. Fifteen states have agreed to hold law enforcement to a higher standard than the general population. Thirteen have rejected this view. Not only have states split on the standard they hold law enforcement to, there is also fierce division as to what constitutes fighting words. Aaron Oleston dared to verbally oppose police actions at his local police precinct on five occasions. He stood and paced on the sidewalk, speaking to police officers and recording his interactions. While the 1 words he used were frequently crass, and he occasionally raised his voice to carry over other noise, his physical actions were calm and nonthreatening. The fifth time he did so, police arrested him for “harassing people off duty”. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed three of Mr. Oleston’s convictions, but upheld two others based on his conduct of approaching the officers while talking to them. The question presented is: Does the First Amendment protect the right of the people to approach law enforcement and criticize police actions in an opprobrious manner? 2