First Amendment cases can be messy. They often deal with unpopular speech or unpopular speakers, such as student anti-war protestors or Klansmen. Exercising the right to free speech does not always look brave and picturesque. Last fall in Fairhope, Alabama, it looked like an inflatable penis.
Renea Gamble, 61, of Fairhope, wore the costume to Fairhope’s No Kings protest in October of 2025, carrying a sign that read NO DICK-TATOR. That afternoon, city police officer Andrew Babb arrested Gamble on a charge of disorderly conduct. When Babb asked her who she was, Gamble retorted: “Aunt Tifa.”
Gamble soon became a symbol of defiance and free speech for many Alabamians, drawing nationwide support during her legal battle. Finally, after a bench trial on April 16, Fairhope municipal judge Haymes Snedeker cleared Gamble, acquitting her of three misdemeanor charges and dismissing another. Gamble has since filed notice of a lawsuit against the city.
The Arrest: ‘This Is a Family Town’
Alabama newspaper source AL.com has posted a three-minute portion of Officer Babb’s bodycam footage (provided by Gamble’s legal team). This clip shows the moments before and during the arrest.
Just before arresting Gamble, Officer Babb calls for a backup unit during his ongoing conversation with her. He repeatedly puts his main question to Gamble: “Serious as a heart attack … I would like to hear how you would explain to my children what you’re supposed to be.”
Gamble avoids answering, then says: “Am I being detained? If not, I’m just gonna go this way.” She turns and walks away. Officer Babb follows and grabs her costume. Amid a shouting crowd, he pulls Gamble down to the ground and cuffs her, saying: “This is a family town, and I’m not gonna have somebody out here dressed like this, you understand?”
Gamble cooperates as the officers struggle with the erect penis costume, but she does not stay quiet. At one point, she says: “You’re violating my free speech!” Babb responds: “No, I’m not trying to violate your free speech. I’m trying to preserve a town that has values.”
The City Presses Forward to Trial
After Gamble was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, she quickly drew the attention and praise of free speech advocates across Alabama and the nation. But rather than dropping her charges, city attorney Marcus McDowell added more: disturbing the peace and providing a false name to law enforcement (Aunt Tifa).
Under the representation of civil rights attorney David Gespass, Gamble rejected a plea deal and moved forward to trial. There, Judge Snedeker dismissed the charge of giving a false name, but he heard three hours of testimony on the other three charges against Gamble.
According to the Intercept’s account of the trial, Officer Babb “denied that he’d been personally offended” by the inflatable penis costume. Instead, he claimed that Gamble was a hazard to others around her because the costume blocked her vision. Babb also said that as a “distraction,” Gamble’s costume was a hazard to traffic as well.
Most importantly, Babb asserted that the penis costume was “obscene,” and thus not legally protected speech. Since it was a Saturday during Little League season, as well as the day of a mayor’s funeral, Babb believed the costume was obscene “in that setting.” In Babb’s words, “the totality of circumstances is what was inappropriate.”
Ultimately, Judge Snedeker acquitted Gamble of the remaining charges. As he did so, he stated that “there was probable cause for arrest, but I can’t convict and sentence someone unless I’m sure.”
What Is ‘Obscene’ and When?
When Judge Snedeker acquitted Renea Gamble, he said, “There is a standard that needs to be met.” He apparently did not explain his reasoning for whether Gamble’s costume could be obscene. But if he had decided that it was obscene, Officer Babb could have had the right to arrest her.
Obscenity’s legal definition has shifted over the years, but today it follows the Miller standard. If a statement or expression (such as a penis costume) that:
- “Appeal[s] to the prurient interest in sex,” according to “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”;
- “Portray[s] sexual conduct in a patently offensive way” to community standards; and
- “Taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”
If these conditions are met, the First Amendment does not protect it from state regulation.
In Officer Babb’s incident report, he specifically referred to the costume’s lack of “artistic value.” And when he told Gamble that Fairhope “is a family town” and that he was “trying to preserve a town that has values,” he essentially asserted that Gamble’s costume was against community standards.
But Babb did not necessarily represent the standards for this particular community, as Gespass argued in an earlier motion to dismiss. Fairhope has a history of populist and liberal residents, and even so, it is not easy to define an exclusive community standard in a First Amendment case. As to “prurient interest in sex,” can this be reconciled with using a cartoonish penis costume as an open political statement? Again, Judge Snedeker has not yet published any opinion on this issue.
According to Renea Gamble’s daughter, Adeana, she did not even plan to use the penis costume. Originally, “she had ordered a sea turtle costume.” When that did not come in time, Gamble opened the door to an unexpected argument and stood up for more beliefs than she expected to.
Related Resources
- The Legal Consequences of Getting Arrested in College for Nonviolent Protesting (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Protest Laws by State (FindLaw's Learn About the Law) - Is There a Right to Peaceful Protest? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
