>>17624923Nope.
Pic related, and then a little later in the same ruling:
>While “[i:lit]t [wa]s clear that the Constitution gave Mr. Greene no license to interrupt the transaction of public business by loud animadversions on Lt. Barber’s personality and mental capacity,” we held that “standing alone, the fact that Mr. Greene’s remarks were unflattering to Lt. Barber clearly gave Barber no license to abridge Greene’s freedom to speak as he did.” Id. We held that “Mr. Greene’s characterization of Lt. Barber as an ‘asshole’ was not egregious enough to trigger application of the ‘fighting words’ doctrine” because “it is hard to imagine Mr. Greene’s words inciting a breach of the peace by a police officer whose sworn duty it was to uphold the law.” Id. at 896. Likewise, we held in D.D. v. Scheelerthat saying “fuck the police” and referring to officers as “useless” and “idiots” “did not rise to the level of ‘fighting words’” in part because the epithets were “no worse than the speech protected” in a previous case, were not “beyond ‘coarse criticism,’” and were not “designed to provoke” the officer. 645 F. App’x at 420, 425–27. Wehave held that similar speech is protected by the First Amendment when unaccompanied by other conduct,2which is consistent with the rule that “[f]its of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule” but are not “illegal,” “punishable[,] or for that matter grounds for a seizure.” Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 918 F.3d 494, 495 (6th Cir. 2019) (extending middle finger to police officer provided no legal basis to stop plaintiff). 