The supreme court has upheld that a 'chilling effect' (an action that does not directly stop free speech, but has the intent of discouraging it) is an invalid l

The supreme court has upheld that a 'chilling effect' (an action that does not directly stop free speech, but has the intent of discouraging it) is an invalid limitation on free speech. They have also ruled that filming and disseminating footage of police is protected speech. If the officer's intent is playing music with the outcome of causing an invalid copyright strike or otherwise causing harm to the citizen, then it could be easily argued that the officer is restricting free speech. Uploading the video to social media would be considered protected speech in the sense that it would be unconstitutional for a government agent to intentionally act in a way that prevents it. The intent is critical here, and the officer would have to defend himself by justifying his bizarre behavior.