To be clear:
The ruling in no way limits what someone can say about the police. Bartlett sued the police, claiming the arrest was because he had criticized the police. The court found that since the police had “probable cause” (i.e., Bartlett was allegedly visibly drunk), the police had not acted improperly. That is, the police can’t retaliate by enforcing the law.
This is a real screw-up for civil libertarians, however. CNN notes, “Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, worried during arguments about finding a line that would toss out frivolous claims but protect claims with merit, such as a journalist who wrote something critical of a police department and then later is given a “citation for driving 30 miles an hour in a 20-25 mile an hour zone.””
“I had the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability to...”
I’m not sure why Justice Alito is worried that the might write a “citation for driving 30 miles an hour in a 20-25 mile an hour zone.” In the example case, the person is clearly breaking the law, so the police have every right to ticket him.
And yes, I would be annoyed for being pulled over for just 5 mph over the limit.
Journo would still have been speeding.