Random Thoughts: Governor Lamont and Free Speech

In Waterford, a man is seemingly in hot water for allegedly threatening the governor via Twitter.  

Via WTNH News 8:
Waterford Man Charged With Threatening Lamont (1)

Allow me to share with you my thoughts on the matter.  

From the start, I must make it clear that I absolutely do not condone what this man appears to have said.  Even so, I question where the governor is going on this.  My lack of a law degree notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to me that the person in question violated any law.  

To explain this, let's examine the relevant facts. 

Every American has the right to free speech, and the right to speak his or her mind without fear of reprisals from the government.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (2).

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut also weighs in on the subject:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" (Article I, Section Four) 

Obviously, this freedom is not absolute; notice that the state constitution talks about "abuse" of freedom of speech.  You can't say things that, reasonably considered, pose a "clear and present danger" to another's safety (think shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire).  And you can't express serious intent to engage in any "imminent lawless action". (See: "true threats", Note 1)

That said, let's look at what Connecticut state law says on the subject of "threatening".  

According to Section 53a-62 Chapter 952 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a person is guilty of the charge when:

"(1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury,

(2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, or 

(3) violates subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection and the person threatened is in a building or on the grounds of a (A) house of religious worship, (B) religiously-affiliated community center, (C) public or nonpublic preschool, school or institution of higher education, or (D) day care center, as defined in § 19a-87g, during operational, preschool, school or instructional hours or when a building or the grounds of such house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center are being used for the provision of religious or community services, or house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center-sponsored activities".  

It seems to me that this person did not pose an "imminent" threat to the governor's physical safety, nor have the clear capability to carry out such a threat.  By the accused's own admission, he did not have any clear intent to harm the governor.  As such, the speech that this man expressed cannot be construed as a "true threat".  

Here's something else to consider.  According to a research report by attorney Susan Price-Livingston (representing the State of Connecticut), state courts don't always consider whether or not a perceived threat is serious.  "Rather", she says, they "resolve(d) the pure speech cases that (have) come before them under the First Amendment's 'fighting words' doctrine" (3).  

I won't get into whether or not the state has erred by applying this criteria as opposed to the "true threat" example.  Nevertheless, even by the "fighting words" standard, the accused is innocent of the charge, as the speech expressed does not meet the associated tests.  (See: Note 2)

That being the case, what exactly is going on here? "True threat" or not, does Governor Lamont think so little of free speech that he will seek to punish anyone that dares utter a word against him? The answer, apparently (supported by my own experience with him), is yes (4).  

You see, in Ned Lamont's world (to paraphrase wrestling personality William Regal; see below) he is "your ruler, your better, and your superior" (5).  

All hail "King Ned". 

Note 1: See also "Watts v. United States", Supreme Court of the United States, 1969.

Note 2: The "fighting words" doctrine applies only when all of the following conditions are present: 

1. The speaker addresses his words directly to a specific individual.

2. The encounter is face-to-face.  

3. The words used are likely to provoke the “average addressee” to violence under the circumstances. and

4. The threat of a violent response is imminent (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942)) (3).  

Since there was no face-to-face encounter with the governor, and no apparent threat of a "violent response" from such, this test must fail.  

Sources:

1. Gentile, Isabella. “Waterford Man Charged with Threatening Lamont on Twitter.” WTNH.com, News 8 WTNH, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/ct-state-police-waterford-man-arrested-for-threatening-lamont-on-twitter/.  Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

2. “U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online.” Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net, https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html.  Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

3. Price-Livingston, Susan. Criminal Conduct under Connecticut's "Threatening" Laws, General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, 10 Feb. 2000, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/2000-R-0138.htm#:~:text=Connecticut%27s%20state%20courts%20haveheld%20that%20where%20pure%20speech,determined%20that%20the%20First%20Amendment%20is%20not%20implicated.  Accessed 27 Nov 2021.

4. Boland, Matt. “‘A Quick Update Of Sorts...".” Facebook, 4 Nov. 2021, https://www.facebook.com/matt.boland.944/posts/10225291177882220.  Accessed 27 Nov 2021.  

5. YouTube User "Trinihustla4life2" (from original broadcast of the USA Network/Sky Sports).  Kennedy Returns.  2008, https://youtu.be/b_LNHFwIBL0?t=126.  Footage courtesy World Wrestling Entertainment.  Accessed 27 Nov 2021.