My regular reader (Hi Jeff!) will recall that it doesn’t take much to get me talking about constitutional rights and free speech. Heck, I’ve cited the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, and the right to say nothing to cops, in no less than seven columns during my run here at Colorado Politics. So it is not surprising that I was interested in a recent CP story that is yet another example of what free speech really means.

And in this particular case, that lesson cost the taxpayers of Denver $128,000.

Our remarkable Constitution is packed with great stuff. As I taught my students at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the Constitution is essentially nothing more than a contract between the government and the people, limiting what the government can do, and enshrining fundamental rights for all citizens. Everyone knows about the First Amendment, a vital guard against government tyranny, but there are also some great rights in the body of the Constitution itself. Things like no ex post facto laws are allowed to be passed, which are laws that would retroactively declare someone’s actions a crime. And Congress cannot “work a corruption of the blood,” which basically means that family members of a criminal cannot themselves be punished for their family member’s actions. Obscure, eh? Yet interesting? (Ed: yes, sigh…).

But the Constitution’s holy of holies for most folks is that first part of the First Amendment, wherein free speech is protected. The Founders believed it was vital to protect speech, especially political speech, absolutely, regardless of how offensive and repulsive some folks might find some such speech.

Which brings us to the recent Denver City Council approval of a $128,000 payment to two men who were arrested for, well, nasty speech.

It seems that back in 2018, a couple of guys were arrested on the 16th Street Mall for yelling, as reported in CP, “F— the police.” Take a minute to read the story, and you’ll see, according to the lawsuit, that one of the gents was protesting the arrest of a friend of his who was handing out free food to homeless people (that law could definitely be the subject of another column). The suit says the man then used the angry expletive while walking on public property. A couple with a child were dining on an outdoor patio and heard the cussing, who yelled at the man to stop. A cop then said, “that’s all we need,” and the arrests took place, for cussing.

I’m certainly not a fan of rude behavior. But frankly, as has often been said by me and other much smarter folks, one of the prices we must be willing to pay for free speech is being offended from time to time. The charges against both gents were eventually dropped, in part I assume because the rude yell was, in fact, a form of political speech. Crudely put, to be sure, but the message was basically “I don’t agree with the actions of these government agents,” which is absolutely a political message.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times on issues of free speech, and only very small limits are allowed. You cannot, for example, make false advertising claims (“the new Ford gets 1,000 miles per-gallon!) and you cannot endanger public safety (yelling fire in a crowed theater). But those restrictions are quite limited.

So, a couple of cuss words cost the good people of Denver $128 grand. That is in addition to settlements of roughly $25 million for excessive force complaints and civil rights violation by law enforcement between March 2011 and March 2022. Earlier this year, a group of protestors were awarded $14 million after involvement in racial discrimination demonstrations in 2020. You can’t really put a price tag on free speech, but in practical terms, in Denver, it can add up to millions.

Look, I’m a former military cop myself, and I’m definitely pro law enforcement, but that doesn’t excuse bad policing. When you put on your uniform, you should expect to be offended by something or someone — a cost of freedom requires that we tolerate the outrageous. I personally am offended by those who continue to spout the Trumpian lies about a stolen election. This is, in my view, despicable. Never before has a defeated president asserted that the entire system itself was corrupt, because otherwise he could never lose.

Yet that speech is protected and cannot be suppressed.

As I’ve often ranted, the cure for “bad” speech is lots and lots of “good speech.” It is far better, for example, to have TV ads running that feature our current Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, appearing together to assert and assure the security of out state’s elections, than it is to try to squash the free speech rights of nutty people like, well, you know who (cough… Boebert… cough).

Frankly, I’m more offended by people not having health care, by Americans being hungry, by kids that don’t have access to a quality education. I’m offended by teachers being paid ridiculously low salaries, who then (like my daughter the former elementary school teacher) spend about 10% of that meager pay to buy things for poor students who can’t afford paper and pencils. I’m offended by people who want to ban books.

And I can be offended by foul language. I just don’t want the government to decide which words are foul. So have a nice day, enjoy our remarkable Colorado, and oh, be prepared to be offended. It is a cost of liberty.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.