In City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), a Houston, Texas city ordinance prohibiting the interruption of a police officer in the performance of his duties was held unconstitutionally overbroad on the basis that the law attempted to regulate speech that was also constitutionally protected. In so holding, the Supreme Court commented that the First Amendment "protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Id. 461. The Court in Hill, stated: "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . But it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461. Even further, the high court declared that "the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Id. 462-63. The United States Supreme Court found unconstitutionally overbroad an ordinance that prohibited verbal interruptions of police officers. Id. at 461. The ordinance made it unlawful for any person "to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty." Id. at 455. The City of Houston urged the Court to apply limiting constructions that would eliminate the ordinance's overbreadth. Id. at 467. The Court declined, holding that a statute is not susceptible to a limiting construction if "its language is plain and its meaning unambiguous. Its constitutionality cannot 'turn upon a choice between one or several alternate meanings.'" Id. at 468 .