On appeal, N.M.C. argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because the Commonwealth failed to prove that his acts of recording the fight and sending it to two people created a hazardous or physically offensive condition. Specifically, he argued that he did not do any acts which could be construed as public unruliness which could or did lead to tumult and disorder. Additionally, N.M.C. argued that the Commonwealth presented no evidence that he sent words in the text messages containing the video that either encouraged or incited violence nor was there evidence that the combatants in the fight were motivated by seeing a similar video nor did the possible dissemination of the video lead the combatants to fight. Finally, N.M.C. argued that he did not create a “physically offensive condition” because his actions were not direct assaults on the physical senses of members of the public.

Although leaving for another day whether wider dissemination of such material on social media networks could create a hazardous condition within the meaning of statute, the Superior Court concluded that the “trial court’s conclusion stretche[d] the disorderly conduct statute too far.”

In conclusion and support of its decision, the Superior Court cited familiar language to those who argue against the overzealous application of the Disorderly Conduct statute: “The offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as a catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people; it is not to be used as a dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community. It has a specific purpose; it has a definitive objective, it is intended to preserve the public peace; it has thus a limited periphery beyond which the prosecuting authorities have no right to transgress any more than the alleged criminal has the right to operate within its clear outlined circumference.”