State v. Pucket

Oregon distinguishes between laws that focus on the content of speech or writing and laws that focus on the pursuit or accomplishment of forbidden results. State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 164, 838 P2d 558 (1992), cert den, 508 US 974 (1993).

Pucket appealed a conviction for second-degree disorderly conduct of recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, and alarm by making unreasonable noise.  He assigned error to the court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that ORS 166.025(1)(b) violated "both Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution and the first Amendment of the United States Constitution as applied to his expressive conduct."  Pucket argued that the statute should only prohibit noise that involves expression if there is a clear and present danger of violence or if the speech is meant merely to disturb people.  Oregon distinguishes between laws that focus on the content of speech or writing and laws that focus on the pursuit or accomplishment of forbidden results.  State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157, 164, 838 P2d 558 (1992), cert den, 508 US 974 (1993).  The Court held that the restriction on Pucket's amplified speech did not violate Article I, section 8, as well as the First Amendment analysis because the government may impose "reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech" so long as the restrictions are content neutral. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 Us 781, 791, 109 s Ct 2746, 105 L Ed 2d 661 (1989).  Affirmed.