Liberty and Lippiness

As the Massachusetts Appeals Court has noted, "the theory behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the tendency of the actor's conduct to provoke violence in others." Yet police officers often seem to think the purpose of such laws is to punish people for talking back to cops.

"You don't get paid to be publicly abused," Michael J. Palladino, president of New York City's Detectives Endowment Association, told the Times last week. "There are laws that protect against that." A Brooklyn police officer agreed, saying, "I wouldn't back down if there's a crowd gathering. If there's a group and they're throwing out slurs and stuff, you have to handle it."

In this context, the relevance of the gathering crowd is not the potential for a riot but the potential for losing face. A policy of zero tolerance for public slights may be appropriate for a gangster, but it's not appropriate for a peace officer charged with enforcing the law.

Among other things, the law guarantees the right of citizens to criticize public officials.

Sometimes the criticism is justified. In fact, the more outrageous police misconduct is, the more likely it is to provoke an angry response that can be cited as the basis for a disorderly conduct arrest.

When a police officer faces unfair criticism, the best response may be to walk away. Sometimes swallowing your pride takes more courage than standing your ground.