government. He also contends that, in case of controversy, it is to be expected that speakers and spectators on both sides of an issue will appear and participate. He states that “applause for favored speakers and hoots for the opponents, perhaps even a few angry words, are all considered” de rigueur. Finally, he asserts that the line drawn by the Federal and State Constitutions is at violence and the real threat of violence, not comfort or subjective alarm. Mr. Berrill concludes that because he was not violent and did not threaten violence, his conduct should be protected. In further support of the argument that his right to petition was violated, appellant relies on Webb v. Fury, 167 W.Va. 434, 282 S.E.2d 28 (1981), overruled, by Harris v. Adkins, 189 W.Va. 465, 432 S.E.2d 549 (1993) (<HOLDING>), and the Noerr-Pen-nington doctrine, which was
holding that right to petition does not provide an absolute privilege for intentional and reckless falsehoods holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege holding that absolute privilege applies to proposed but unfiled complaint recognizing privilege recognizing an absolute privilege for police records in a habeas corpus action