MrSpkr's random thoughts . . .: Disturbing . . .

Friday, February 03, 2006

Disturbing . . .
Drudge is reporting the following story:

WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Fri Feb 03 2006 09:24:48 ET

A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday.

Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident.

On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window.

Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.

Developing..."
This is troublesome on a number of levels. The most important, however, has to do with why there is a statute barring "ridicule on account of race, creed or color."

Out of sheer morbid curiousity, I pulled the statute in question, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-37.

§ 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color.

Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.
I was unable to find any cases interpreting the constitutionality of this statute, but it seems to me that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. While racial epithets may be extremely offensive, they are speech. Criminalizing speech is generally a bad idea unless the speech in question incites others to violence or otherwise poses a risk of imminent physical harm to others (for example, where one shouts "FIRE" in a crowded movie house). Given the penalty (I would presume the $50 fine would be the most common penalty imposed), however, appealing an adverse ruling would be financially prohibitive (at best).

Do I agree with such racial epithets? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I agree with allowing the heavy hand of government to criminalize speech.
- posted by MrSpkr @ 09:44

Comments:

Interesting, I had no idea such a law was on the books. I tend to agree by the way ... next they'll be banning schoolkids for saying "nyah, nyah, nyah".

Given your comments, however, I'm moved to ask your feelings on the recent dustup over the State of the Union "T-Shirts."

Don't misunderstand, I think Cindy is WAY over the top lately and in any case I don't think the SOTU is the right setting for exercising such "speech" (who wears a T-Shirt to an event like that ... of course there were some girl athletes who went to the White House to meet the President in FLIP-FLOPS), but just out of curiousity, how far do you see "free speech" extending?

Joe

p.s. See, you have at least ONE devoted reader. :)

# posted by

Joe Shaw : Friday, February 03, 2006 9:56:00 AM

very well said, MrSpkr!

# posted by

Christi Nielsen : Friday, February 03, 2006 2:17:00 PM

Well, Joe, I think in most settings, wearing those sorts o fT-Shirts (whether they be Cindy Sheehan's anti-war or the Republican representative's spouse who wore a pro-Iraq t-shirt) is a right protected by the First Amendment. In the specific, limited circumstances, however, guests of the House of Representatives should maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives. Guests should wear business attire, etc., etc. To the extent anyone was ignorant of the House rules, it was the responsibility of the inviting Representative to so inform the guest.

# posted by

MrSpkr : Friday, February 03, 2006 2:29:00 PM

My thinking exactly Steve ... and you have no idea how disturbing that is :)

Joe

# posted by

Joe Shaw : Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:23:00 AM

I'm sure the ACLU has already contacted the Taco Bell Nazi in preparation of supporting her free speech.

As for the SOTU t-shirt event, the wife of the congressman should have enough sense to dress appropriately. Sheehan on the other hand doesn't have any sense so she's almost excusable.

# posted by

digitalbrownshirt : Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:52:00 PM

About Me