An Oil City man has filed a complaint alleging that municipal officials in Oil City threatened to charge him criminally for vulgar political speech.

And he invoked a Times Observer article in his defense.

William E. Healy filed the complaint in the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In it, he said he posted a sign on his property that said “F*** Trump 2020.”

The complaint states he subsequently received a call from the chief of police in Oil City and “was distressed,” having his attorney who filed the complaint, Michael Hadley, return the call.

“Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with the Chief of Police who stated that he has received complaints about the Plaintiff’s sign and that he considered the sign to be disorderly conduct,” the complaint states, explaining that Hadley worked out an “understanding” where the sign would be removed.

But the complaint continues to allege a First Amendment violation.

“United States Supreme Court precedent clearly holds that the use of the word “f***” (asterisks not in the original) in political speech is not an obscenity,” the complaint argues, and criticizes Oil City’s municipal officials “by improperly enforcing or threatening to enforce… against people who merely use inappropriate language incorrectly categorized as obscene language, which is, nevertheless, constitutionally protected speech.

“The Plaintiff has now had his First Amendment Rights chilled by the threat of criminal prosecution and thus suffers irreparable harm which is continuing and ongoing.”

That’s where the Times Observer story from earlier this month came in.

Flags in the community, supporting President Donald Trump in the upcoming election, include phrases such as “No More Bull…” and “(Expletive) Your Feelings.”

“The city is not in a position to take any action as the political flags and signs are protected by the First Amendment,” City Manager Nancy Freenock explained earlier this month, citing a Supreme Court case from the early 1970s.

“The City can regulate the size of signs and in some instances can regulate content,” Freenock added. “For example, speech which could incite one to riot is not acceptable nor is yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire.”

Hadley wrote in the complaint that the Warren situation “demonstrates how properly trained and supervised city employees should handle citizen complaints about protected First Amendment activity.

An order – the most recent filing in the case – was entered on Sept. 29 prohibiting the city from taking any enforcement actions against Healy through Oct. 13.