Court: Profanity-laced tirade was protected free speech

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Dave Collins, Associated Press
Updated 3:32 pm, Friday, July 7, 2017


HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut woman who hurled a variety of insults at a grocery store manager was protected by constitutional free speech rights and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Nina Baccala was arrested in her hometown of Vernon in 2013 after subjecting a Stop & Shop assistant manager to a profanity-laced tirade. Prosecutors said she became enraged when the manager told her it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer.

Baccala called the manager "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names, prosecutors said.

Baccala, 44, was convicted of breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the name calling and insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to constitutional free speech rights.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Court-Profanity-laced-tirade-was-protected-free-11272720.php

[juxtaposed]

1. So now I'm free to speak freely

[WhiteTara]

2. Thanks to her, we are now all allowed

to be frank and earnest in our remarks.

[TheBlackAdder]

15. In CT perhaps. Wasn't that just a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling?

[PoliticAverse]

3. Yet another example of why it isn't fun working retail. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

4. Good. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is an abomination.

It's one of those court cases that is clearly wrong. Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness who was preaching and handing out pamphlets on a street when a crowd circled him and heckled him because people of his faith do not say the Pledge of Allegiance. Officers took him in for "causing a scene" which is why he vented at them calling them "Damned Racketeers" and "Damned Fascists."

[SkyDaddy7]

8. Are you a lawyer?

If so, cool, if not, I would still like your opinion...If calling someone "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names" is not considered "fighting words" then what would be? LOL!?!

[NutmegYankee]

16. I disagree with the fighting words exception in its entirety.

Last edited Sat Jul 8, 2017, 06:36 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a tool of oppression, was in the 1940s, still is today. In its original form it protected a corrupt town official who was preventing a religious minority from freely practicing his faith.

The problem is people react to different insults or statements, often in unreasonable ways. In one case, the atheist statement that "there is no God" resulted in a breech of peace. But it's also a basic statement of "faith", which an overly sensitive person was able to overrule. Many of the statements we make about Republicans here could be taken as fighting words on the streets, but are also protected political opinions. Breach of peace and disturbing the peace were once used for fighting between ethnic immigrant groups, but are now heavily used against left wing protesters while the right wing can say anything without fear.

In this specfic case, it's clear the manager isn't going to get into a fight. The defendant was an asshole, but there were plenty of options including banning the individual from the premises without resorting to one of the worst "exceptions" on free speech ever.

[SkyDaddy7]

17. Yes, that makes perfect sense!

I knew there had to have been something odd about the law because "fighting words" could mean anything to anyone at anytime.

Thanks!

[NutmegYankee]

18. Unfortunately, this was only a State Supreme Court ruling.

The original decision from 1942 still stands, must to the glee of right wing authorities nationwide. I don't defend assholes (like the lady in the CT case) on an individual basis, but society has enough tools to deal with them without suppressing freedom of expression through government force. Also these laws are unevenly applied - for instance the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy where this principle was used on a man yelling from his own porch (which is arguably not even "In Public&quot .

As an interesting note, Jehovah's Witnesses have established several important First Amendment cases as society was quite hostile to them. The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. This overturned Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940) from just three years prior, in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag. If you look at the case I had mentioned in my first reply from 1942, it was the vast protests by Jehovah's Witnesses to being forced to say the pledge that caused the crowd to heckle the defendant in that case and "cause the scene". Most of the other cases have had to do with licensing/permitting for gatherings and proselytizing. It was common for localities to deny permits and discriminate because of the beliefs of the religion.

[SkyDaddy7]

20. Yes, I can totally see...

your point about how the law could be abused. Especially against minorities or certain religious sects like the JW. That is interesting about the Jehovah Witness being harassed leading to several important 1st Amendment cases...I'm sure they've been treated like crap over the years.

The Henry Louis Gates arrest...I assume you're talking about when he was locked out of his own home & someone called the police on him for breaking into his own house...And even after he showed the cops proof he lived there they arrested him? If so, are you saying the cops basically charged him for yelling or using fighting words because he was upset with them for treating him they way they were?

I worked for a criminal defense lawyer(a good friend of mine) for a short time while going to college. I remember he used to laugh at how some police would, in his opinion, and I would agree, abuse the charge of "Disorderly Conduct". If they could not find a reason to charge someone for anything they would always charge them with Disorderly Conduct...Especially, if they got upset with someone who knew their rights & didn't do anything wrong. It kinda sounds similar.

Oh yeah, thanks for the detailed answers!!

[NutmegYankee]

21. Gates was charged with Disorderly Conduct because he was yelling at the cop.

It was the classic example of "Disorderly Conduct" being used for "Contempt of Cop", as the latter doesn't legally exist. Gates felt it was discrimination, the officer felt he was just doing his job, and the two vastly different world views collided into a big news story. Thankfully, the charges were dropped and the matter ended with the "Beer Summit".

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Historical Note: I'm not JW, but the JW were the only Christian denomination to go

to Hitler's concentration camps en masse as a denomination. I've always treated their ambassadors at my door with respect and courtesy because of that.

[gopiscrap]

22. totally agree

[Mosby]

5. Good.

The police love to fuck people with the "disturbing the peace" charge.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Baccala is a horrible excuse for a human being. Disgusting behavior.

Seems abusive to me, since it was directed at a person. Seems to me it interferes with the other person's right not be talked to in that extreme way and have derogatory names hurled at him/her.

[drmeow]

10. Maybe the assistant manager can sue her

for emotional damage. She should be banned from the store.

[xor]

12. Banned from the store seems reasonable. And if she comes back then it's trespassing, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if they already did that.

[X_Digger]

13. What magical right is this? What law does one break by calling you derogatory names?

There's no 'attempted fee-fee hurting' in the legal code.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Disorderly conduct. Harassment. nt

[NutmegYankee]

19. Those are laws, not rights, and in the Connecticut Case above, got overruled.

[Honeycombe8]

28. Don't understand your point. As I said, the "laws" might provide...

a relief against such conduct, depending on the jurisdiction. Because of the outrageousness and hostility and personal attack nature of the verbal attack.

Apparently not in that jurisdiction, but would be applicable in some....and have been.

[X_Digger]

26. I don't think you know what harassment is. Calling you a name isn't it.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Yes, it can be. You don't understand legal definitions in different jurisdictions.

[X_Digger]

29. Do look it up, please. You'll find words like 'repeated', 'systematic', 'pattern of behavior', etc.

Calling you a name isn't it.



I imagine the courts would be overflowing if your imagined definition were true. LOL!

[Doug the Dem]

7. George Carlin would be Proud

[KingCharlemagne]

25. As would Carlin's forbear Lenny Bruce - nt

[Garion_55]

9. 1st amendment wins

im all for people being allowed to say whatever they want to another person short of threatening physical violence.


i grew up around people that spent hours entertaining themselves by insulting you and anyone else who was hanging out that night. your clothes, your walk, your grades, your family, whatever. and you were expected to think up creative ways to insult them back. a battle of wits and words. but we did it all with love for each other. almost as a way to toughen your skin up for later on in life. it never got physical nor was it meant to.

but if we could have gone to jail for insulting others back then, id be doing consecutive life terms lol

[xor]

11. Even awful horrible people are protected against such charges and sentences

While I don't think Baccala is a person worthy of defending, I don't like the idea of people being thrown in jail just for calling someone fat and ugly. Ridiculed and shunned by the community? Maybe. But arrest seems a bit harsh. Imagine if we all got arrested for saying mean things. Half of DU would be in jail right now

[gopiscrap]

23. I would be serving a life sentence

[WhoWoodaKnew]

30. Philadelphia Eagles fans have to be happy...