Wow. It's official. Shooting the bird at another driver IS NOT sufficient evidence to get you convicted of disorderly conduct. What is amazing is that a jury, in Caldwell County, actually convicted in the first place. For details, read Coggin v. Texas.

Now, the opinion doesn't say a conviction couldn't happen. So, what facts would justify a conviction?

Along those same lines, you can also now say, "What the &*%$!" on TV, as long as you are not describing a sex act. See today's Statesman.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 10-09-03 at .]

I'm a little perplexed at some of the internal reasoning in this opinion. First, it suggests that whether "shooting the bird" might be disorderly conduct is dependant upon the context in which the act occurred, and goes on to state that if the act were accompanied by reckless driving or "road rage" that it might be unlawful. As I read the opinion, the "victim" originally reported that the defendant was tailgating or driving recklessly so I'm not sure what more the court might have wanted. Second, I wonder whether it makes a difference that this incident occurred in Lockhart as opposed to some freeway in Houston. I think it's pretty much common knowledge in the Houston area, at least among folks with common sense, that such gestures can result in getting you shot, or at least shot at. I wonder if it might have made a difference here if the victim had pulled out his .45 and "busted a couple of caps?" Seems to me that if we're attempting to foster public safety, this opinion sends the wrong message. Wonder if there will be a PDR on this one.