you.” There, the defendant was convicted in the county court for uttering the words ‘fuck you’in violation of a city ordinance. That ordinance provided that “It shall be unlawful for any personto disturb or tend to disturb the peace of others by . . . offensive language, calculated to provokea breach of the peace . . . .” The Colorado Supreme Court reversed holding that the ordinancewas unconstitutionally applied.The
court cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases in its analysis,
¸403 U.S. 15 (1971) and
Street v. New York
, 394 U.S. 576, (1969). The
in its analysis. In
Cohen v. California
, 403 U.S. 15(1971), the Supreme Courtstated that “while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distastefulthan most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another'slyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principleddistinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to theindividual.”The
court also found persuasive the following language from
:“Appellant's words, taken alone, did not urge anyone to do anything unlawful. They amountedonly to somewhat excited public advocacy of the idea that the United States should abandon, atleast temporarily, one of its national symbols. It is clear that the Fourteenth Amendmentprohibits the States from imposing criminal punishment for public advocacy of peaceful changein our institutions.”
, 511 P.2d at 180 (quoting
Street v. New York
, 394 U.S. 576, (1969).Petitioners also make the claim that Mr. Brigham’s political conduct may be consideredstalking. However, they also do not state what actions by Mr. Brigham constitute stalking. Onemust ask, are they truly arguing that a citizen who routinely attends government functions isguilty of stalking? If it is true that the lead Boulder prosecutor believes Mr. Brigham’s conductamounts to stalking, why hasn’t he, or District Attorney Stan Garnett, charged Mr. Brigham withstalking? The answer is clear- because Mr. Brigham’s repeated communications with Boulder’selected officials and Boulder government officials is clearly political speech and worthy of thehighest protection the law can afford it.As Petitioners note on page three of their closing statement, Stalking involves severeintrusion on the victim’s personal privacy and autonomy… (emphasis added). In this case,Petitioners have not even alleged, let alone proven, that Mr. Brigham has approached or followedor “stalked” any council members anywhere private. All of Mr. Brigham’s contacts with thesepeople have been in full view of the public and almost always taken place in governmentbuildings during regular hours. Mr. Brigham’s “intrusions” have not been personal, they’ve beenpolitical.
Mr. Brigham’s “intrusions” have not been private, they have been public. Finally, Mr.Brigham’s “intrusions” have only infringed on council members autonomy to the extent that Mr.Brigham is calling attention to what he believes is their corrupt behavior and thus disallowingthem to continue their allegedly shady backdoor political dealings.
The photo of Ms. Becker’s husband accompanied by Ms. Becker and her child, was taken straight from Ms.Becker’s husband’s website. It was copied and pasted with no alteration. Petitioner attempts to create the impressionthat Mr. Brigham took the photo himself, which would still be protected.