Legal Eagle Sunday: Connecticut's "Racial Ridicule Law"

Here’s what the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut say on certain matters regarding speech:

"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 persons or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor" (1).

Now comes a challenge to the constitutionality of this statute, known as the “Racial Ridicule Law”.

In the course of deliberations on this issue, the court has asked the state to elaborate on the meaning of said law. More precisely, the presiding judge asks about the term "by his advertisement":

"Does the speech alleged in Cerame's Complaint (paragraphs 13-18) come within the scope of the phrase 'by his advertisement' as that phrase is used in section 53-37 of the Connecticut General Statutes?" (2)

Notwithstanding the confusion over the phrase being discussed, this specific question strikes me as irrelevant.

You see, it's not so much the definition of the word "advertisement" that matters here. What matters is whether or not the associated statute impermissibly treads in the area of protected speech. Being that the law prescribes a criminal penalty for such, I believe that it does.

To explain my opinion on this, let's examine speech and matters of expression somewhat more thoroughly.

It has long been established that there is a line between freedom of speech and criminal behavior. For instance, you generally have the right to call a black man by a name that starts with N, and rhymes with "rigger"

(I hear it all the time in my neighborhood, mostly from one black man to another).

However, you don't have the right to (for a hypothetical example) burn a large cross in the front yard of a black man's residence, as that might put that person in fear for their safety. If what you say or express poses a clear danger to someone else, it may be criminally penalized.

Having said this, we must again turn to the language of the statute in question.

Most of the time, uttering a insult does not endanger others, even if that insult is an obvious epithet. Neither does it communicate a threat of "imminent lawless action". As such, the state cannot legally prohibit such words from being spoken, nor can it prescribe criminal penalties for such speech. That much is forbidden by both the national and state constitutions (3).

Indeed, "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment more than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought (or thoughts) that we hate" (4, 5). 

The court should do the right thing here; give the plaintiff the relief sought, and strike down this law. 

 

Sources:

1. General Assembly of the State of Connecticut. "Chapter 939 - Offenses Against The Person." General Statutes of Connecticut, State of Connecticut, https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_939.htm#sec_53-37. Accessed 8 Jan. 2023. 

2. United States District Court, District of Connecticut. “Order Certifying Question Re: Defendants ’ Motion...” CourtListener.com, 20 July 2022, 

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.147053/gov.uscourts.ctd.147053.41.0_1.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan. 2023.

3. “Imminent Lawless Action.” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. Accessed 8 Jan. 2023.

4. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, United States v Schwimmer, 1929.  

5. “Is Hate Speech Protected by the First Amendment?” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 8 Feb. 2022, www.thefire.org/news/hate-speech-protected-first-amendment. Accessed 8 Jan. 2023.