I was arrested for cussing at my neighbor for blocking a driveway - but the judge said I had the right to say what I did

AN OHIO appellate court has made a massive first amendment ruling, siding with a local man who had previously been convicted of disorderly conduct after cursing at his neighbor. 

Marysville neighbors Darren Foley and Cory Gibson had been in an ongoing feud about access to one of the homes' driveway when one claimed the other used “fighting words.” 

1

On October 6, 2022, the feud appeared to reach a climax when Foley reportedly parked his truck in his driveway in a way that “blocked egress to the public street," according to the recent opinion.

Foley claimed that the driveway was completely on his property and that no other neighbors were permitted to use it. 

However, he alleged that Gibson used it multiple times before. 

Foley later claimed that after parking the truck, Gibson walked outside and started to yell at him. 

Read More on Neighbor Rows

During the exchange, Gibson allegedly called Foley a “redheaded b***h.” 

Foley later testified that he did not engage with Gibson physically or verbally, but instead entered his home and called the police. 

The dispute was brought to trial in the Marysville Municipal Court, with Gibson facing one count of disorderly conduct. 

The court ultimately found Gibson guilty, saying “beyond reasonable doubt that there was a likelihood that using that language between neighbors would result in a violent response.” 

Most read in The US Sun

Gibson disputed this ruling, bringing it to the higher appellate court. 

He claimed the state failed to prove his language were “fighting words,” and therefore purported it was protected by his First Amendment rights. 

In a win for free speech, the court agreed. 

Specifically, the court pointed to the fact that the language was “milder” compared to other examples of “fighting words,” and that Foley could not remember how loud Gibson had uttered the profanity. 

“Under circumstances like those present in this case, we do not find the simple act of calling someone a ‘redheaded b***h’ would have provoked immediate retaliation,” the court wrote in the opinion. 

“Thus, we conclude that no trier of fact could find that Gibson leveled  ‘fighting words’ against Foley as necessary to sustain a conviction for disorderly conduct.

The court specifically noted that it did not “commend” Gibson’s language or behavior. 

However, it emphasized that he had every right to what he did. 

“Gibson had the right to voice his displease with Foley’s decision to block the driveway, and for this purpose, he had the entire English language at his disposal,” the court ruled. 

Read More on The US Sun

“But in place of eloquence, Gibson resorted to vulgarity and petty insults. However, as inappropriate as it was for Gibson not to take the high ground, the law does not proscribe mere incivility.” 

It continued, “In view of all the circumstances, Gibson's insult, while foul, was not ‘fighting words’ subject to criminal punishment.”