¶1concurring:
¶2¶ 1 I concur with the Majority’s interpretation of the statute, especially as it relates to the legal definition of “obscenity.”
¶3¶ 2 In the instant case, however, Appellant, while driving a car, came upon a work area on a public highway where there were several borough street department employees. For the safety of motorists, one employee approached Appellant in an effort to direct traffic. Appellant responded with profanity, i.e., “fuck you, asshole,” and drove away with her left arm extended out her driver’s window, giving the borough employee “the finger” in plain view of the public.
¶4¶ 3 I would find, under the circumstances of this case, that Appellant’s behavior was clearly combative, particularly in today’s culture of “road rage.”
¶5*1289¶ 4 Moreover, arguably, the emotionally charged profanity coupled with the obscene gesture could be considered “fighting words” in violation of § 5503(a)
¶6¶ 5 Nevertheless, I urge the Pennsylvania Legislature to revise the disorderly conduct statute to specifically prohibit the type of conduct exhibited by Appellant in this case. Public employees, volunteer firefighters and emergency personnel who are carrying out their duties for the safety of citizens should not be subjected to such abusive behavior as exhibited by Appellant. The current state of the law does nothing to discourage such conduct, and it would be appropriate for the Legislature to review and revise the statute accordingly-
¶7. The statute provides, in pertinent part: “A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: ... engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior....” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1).