At least according to a Pennsylvania Appeals Court there isn't. As Prof. Noah Feldman
writing over at Bloomberg News, the case before the court:
involves facts that would be funny if they weren’t tragic in the
everyday sense of the term. Jason Waugaman was dropping off his
children, 6 and 7, at the apartment building of his ex-wife, Kacie
Boeshore. She came down to meet them in the parking lot; Waugaman was
kissing the kids goodbye.
According to Boeshore’s testimony, as
she walked away with the kids, Waugaman said something she couldn’t
hear. She turned around, walked back and stood several feet in front of
his car demanding to know what he’d said. Instead, Waugaman drove off,
giving his ex the finger and (Boeshore testified) narrowly missing her.
Police
in Hampton Township, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, charged Waugaman
with reckless endangerment for the driving and disorderly conduct for
the gesture. A judge acquitted Waugaman of the first, more serious
charge, but found him guilty of disorderly conduct under a state statute
that makes it a crime to intentionally “cause public inconvenience,
annoyance or alarm” by using “obscene language” or an “obscene gesture.”
Students are encourage to read the rest of the article as it clearly explains why courts are so reluctant to categorize something as non-speech. Students in my constitutional law class will know what I am talking about here (at least I hope they do).
