果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

果冻传媒app官方, Professor Eugene Volokh file amicus brief challenging Connecticut鈥檚 鈥榬acial ridicule鈥 law

Downtown buildings under a dark sky at the Connecticut state capitol building in Hartford

Shutterstock.com

The Connecticut state capitol building near downtown Hartford. 

In 1917, Connecticut adopted a law criminalizing any 鈥渁dvertisement鈥 that 鈥渞idicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons鈥 because of their race, nationality, or religion. A century later, the state鈥檚 police and prosecutors regularly ignore the 鈥渁dvertisement鈥 part of the law. Instead, they treat the law as a de facto ban on 鈥渉ate speech,鈥 arresting people 鈥 often homeless or mentally ill 鈥 who utter racial slurs.

Especially when those insults are directed at police officers.

Yesterday, FIREfiled an amicus 鈥 鈥渇riend of the court鈥 鈥 brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court with Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. We鈥檙e asking the court to remind police and prosecutors that the law cannot be used to arrest people for speech that is not an advertisement.

Connecticut鈥檚 limited 鈥榬acial ridicule鈥 statute

Connecticut鈥檚 鈥渞acial ridicule鈥 statute (Gen. Stat. 搂 53-37) :

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 guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

By its plain terms, the law only applies to an 鈥渁dvertisement鈥 of some sort. It could potentially be read to ban only advertisements that indicate the proprietor is engaged in unlawful discrimination 鈥 for example, a business that says 鈥淣o Irish need apply鈥 or 鈥淲hites only.鈥 This reading of the statute would not, in itself, be unconstitutional.

But Connecticut police read it expansively

But that鈥檚 not how police and prosecutors in Connecticut treat the law in practice. In 2019, for example, police at the University of Connecticut tracked and arrested several students for 鈥溾 in which they uttered vulgar, transgressive words at a progressively louder volume 鈥 starting with 鈥減enis鈥 and later replacing it with 鈥渘igger鈥 鈥 while walking through a parking lot. They weren鈥檛 saying the words to anyone in particular, and the only way people learned what the students were saying was when someone . 

The university鈥檚 police launched an 11-day investigation using to figure out who the students were. When police identified them, the students were arrested and charged with violating the 鈥渞acial ridicule鈥 law.

What were the students advertising? Nothing. Still, they were being arrested under this law. This raised the question: Who else was?

Those charged under the law are often homeless or mentally ill.

This year, to learn how police were actually applying the law, FIREundertook a broader search for records, expanding on similar requests first issued by Professor Volokh. The records we found 鈥 all of which are included in the brief 鈥 demonstrate that the UConn students do not represent a one-off example of police and prosecutors applying the law outside the context of advertisements. In fact, of the dozens of arrests, charges, and convictions we documented, none had anything to do with commercial advertisements. 

Instead, as our brief explains, Connecticut law enforcement agencies regularly use the law to arrest people for spoken race-based insults and remarks, especially when those remarks are directed at police officers. 

Those charged under the law are often homeless or mentally ill. Many arrests involve people already being arrested for something else and hurling insults at the arresting officers, who stack the 鈥渞acial ridicule鈥 charge on top. As our brief explains:

For example, the East Hartford Police Department has repeatedly charged people with violating 搂 53-37 for disparaging its white officers. One white officer wrote that he was 鈥渉ighly offended鈥 when an arrestee 鈥渟tated out loud鈥 that the arresting officers were 鈥渃rackers,鈥 and explained in the police report that 鈥渃racker鈥 is 鈥渁 term used to ridicule or disparage a Caucasian person.鈥 One subject was charged with violat-ing 搂 53-37 for calling his arresting officers 鈥渨hite pigs,鈥 鈥渨hite pussy cops,鈥 and 鈥渨hite bitches.鈥 And an 鈥渋ntoxicated鈥 and 鈥渂elligerent鈥 de-tainee was charged with violating the statute because she responded to booking questions with 鈥淔uck you bitch as[s] nigga cracker鈥 and 鈥淪uck yo daddys cock and choke on it you bald headed cracker.鈥  Similarly, another man was charged because he 鈥渦sed racially offensive and derogatory language鈥 during the booking process, calling the officer a 鈥渃racker.鈥

Of course, 搂 53-37 is not limited to insults directed at white officers. In New Britain, a man was charged because, while being booked, he repeatedly referred to an officer as 鈥渘igger.鈥  In Manchester, a man was charged for calling a police officer a 鈥渂lack ass nigger fucking cop.鈥  And in Vernon, a man was charged under the law because he yelled 鈥淸f]uckin鈥 Nigger鈥 while resisting arrest.

As advocates for free expression often warn, subjective limitations on 鈥渉ate speech鈥 can 鈥 and in Connecticut have been 鈥 utilized to protect the powerful, sometimes against members of minority groups the laws are ostensibly designed to protect.

Connecticut鈥檚 鈥榬acial ridicule鈥 statute is unconstitutional

Law enforcement鈥檚 interpretation of the 鈥渞acial ridicule鈥 statute violates the First Amendment. While some instances of hateful expression may be criminalized because they fall into a category of unprotected speech 鈥 like 鈥渇ighting words鈥 or 鈥渢rue threats鈥 鈥 there is no 鈥渉ate speech鈥 exception to the First Amendment

And insults directed at police officers are especially unlikely to amount to unprotected 鈥渇ighting words鈥 鈥 that is, words in a face-to-face encounter likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace 鈥 because police are expected to have the mettle to endure insults without responding with violence.

As advocates for free expression often warn, subjective limitations on 鈥渉ate speech鈥 can 鈥 and in Connecticut have been 鈥 utilized to protect the powerful.

As Connecticut鈥檚 misapplication of this statute shows, broad authority to punish hateful speech will inevitably be used to punish the least popular expression, especially if it is offensive to the authorities. Those without the resources to mount a robust defense to criminal charges, let alone bring an uphill challenge to the constitutionality of a statute 鈥 like the homeless or mentally ill 鈥 are particularly vulnerable. 

A federal court has a question

In 2021, attorney Mario Cerame 鈥 who defended the UConn students 鈥 filed a of his own challenging the constitutionality of the 鈥渞acial ridicule鈥 statute, pointing out that its interpretation meant that he could be arrested for making off-color jokes among friends. The state responded with bombast, that the notion that the law could reach noncommercial speech was 鈥渋maginary, implausible,鈥 鈥渋llusory, unfounded, and not credible,鈥 鈥渃ompletely absurd,鈥 鈥渋mplausible,鈥 and a 鈥渇arce.鈥

Well, not if you ask the police enforcing the law, or the people they arrest.

Because the federal court was uncertain about how the state interprets the law, it used a procedure 鈥 called 鈥渃ertifying鈥 a question 鈥 to by 鈥渁dvertisement.鈥

Our amicus brief demonstrates to the Connecticut Supreme Court that Cerame has a point about how the law has been interpreted and urges the court to clarify that the law鈥檚 use of 鈥渁dvertisement鈥 means 鈥 at least 鈥 that it does not reach noncommercial speech. That would go a long way toward putting police on notice that the law doesn鈥檛 authorize them to arrest people for insulting them.


FIRE and Professor Volokh are represented by of .

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share