the statute in question reads: "a person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person's life, limb, or health;" freeman argued that the words "tumultuous" and "reasonable" are not clearly defined in the law and leave intelligent people to guess about their meaning. freeman also argued that the first amendment protects ministers to speak controversial messages in their churches. sanmiguel argued that while none of freeman's actions constituted obscenity or represented a reasonable threat in themselves, the actions taken as a whole represented disorderly conduct in their totality.