Does anyone remember this video from a few years ago,

[tblue37]

of a kid getting beat down for flipping off a cop as a prank?
http://www.guzer.com/videos/finger_cop.php

The kid moved a bit aggressively toward the cop, and I suppose that by itself could be construed as justification for the cop to react, but he really kept beating the kid.

Yet I believe we actually have a legal right to flip off the cops if we want to, since that would be a sort of political speech.

It's not wise to flip off cops, but I don't think it's illegal, either.

[ejpoeta]

1. i don't think it's illegal to flip off the cops.... or to call them names.

though it isn't wise or respectful to do so. and I would think the majority of cops wouldn't go off on you for that. Just the ones that have issues and feel they need to prove their authority.

[DesertFlower]

2. back in 1971 i was arrested

for saying "death to the pigs". i was told it was "harassment".

[tblue37]

3. I forgot to include the video link!

http://www.guzer.com/videos/finger_cop.php

[Supply Side Jesus]

4. yup, Harassment

That would be harassment and it applies to all citizens.

[merh]

5. SCOTUS has said that criticism of the police is protected 1st amendment right.

Our hard-working law enforcement officers surely deserve better treatment from members of the public. But disgraceful as Duran's behavior may have been, it was not illegal; criticism of the police is not a crime. Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461-63, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2509-10, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1987).

-snip-

"The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
17

Inarticulate and crude as Duran's conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech--such as stopping or hassling the speaker--is categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Aguilar admits that he stopped Duran because he made an obscene gesture and yelled profanities toward him. Aguilar Depo. at 85-86. Because Aguilar might have detained Duran in retaliation for engaging in this protected speech and conduct, summary judgment in favor of Aguilar would have been inappropriate. At the same time, because Aguilar claims that he had no retaliatory motive--that he honestly believed Duran's actions indicated that criminal activity might be afoot--the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Duran on this issue was also error. There remains a material issue of fact, therefore, whether Aguilar intended to hassle Duran as punishment for exercising his First Amendment rights. To the extent the trier of fact determines that officer Aguilar stopped Duran in retaliation for Duran's method of expressing his opinion, this would constitute a separate constitutional violation that could form the basis of liability under section 1983.

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/446391

[tblue37]

6. Time for this: