The case of State v. Suhn reveals the disorderly conduct of Marcus Suhn and the Supreme Court’s decision. The police arrested Suhn when he cursed at the police. The trial court admitted his guilt. Nevertheless, Suhn applied to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, and the latter justified him. The decision of the Supreme Court was based on a thorough investigation of the doctrine of “fighting words.” It was stated that “the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the ‘fighting words’ exception, the words by their very utterance have to tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace under the circumstances of the case.” In other words, it means that Suhn’s words did not violate the law and encourage other people to ruffle.
From my point of view, the decision of the Supreme Court is correct. It was 2 AM when the case occurred. Consequently, there were few people on the street. Moreover, people did not feel discomfort or abused. Thus, the peace was not breached. However, this decision might affect law enforcement’s capability to make contact with or arrest persons who are being bellicose. People might misconduct and cover their actions by the above case. In such cases, a proper judicial investigation seems to be the best way out. As a matter of fact, the United States provides all citizens with the equal right to the freedom of speech. If such speech does not confront the law, then it is recognized as legal. In this regard, I doubt that the mentioned case would increase the usage of so-called “fighting words” in public.