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. 

New Digs: A Trip To Mahoney

This afternoon, I visited Fairfield University to check out the Leo D. Mahoney Arena. Here are my thoughts about the new facility.  

Upon entering the arena, I was immediately struck by the layout of the building.  The design is quite impressive; everything's where it's supposed to be, and brand spankin' new at that.  

A huge video board and scoreboard highlights center court, and a ribbon display which encircles the arena helps fans get into the action.  The building is state-of-the-art, and looks great from top to bottom.  

Nevertheless, the new home of the Stags has a few issues; these start with arena parking.  The lots are somewhat distant from the main entrance; this might cause problems for those with disabilities.  

Also, general accessibility seems to be a problem.  Although the facility has side doors and rear entrances, fans are only allowed to access the building via the front lobby.  This could make for long entry lines on certain game days.  

Here's a bit more information about the thirty five hundred seat arena. (1)  

Longtime Stag fans will note that there are significant differences between Mahoney Arena and its predecessor, Alumni Hall.  The first of these, of course, is the facility's name.  

The family of former University trustee Leo Mahoney was the largest donor to arena construction; as such, it is their name that appears on the marquee, so to speak.  Keeping your boosters and donors happy is, apparently, a key task for any college athletic program (which I don't really have a problem with). (2) 

General seating is another point of difference between the two arenas.  Unlike Alumni Hall, the new building includes a club section, as well as tabletop seats.  Also, the wooden bleachers are gone, which makes for a much better game-viewing experience.  

The Fairfield University student section is gone as well; there doesn't seem to be any designated area for this purpose.  I'm told that students are offered discounts on tickets in lieu of this.  

Still another difference involves the location of restrooms.  Bathrooms at Mahoney Arena are centrally located throughout the main concourses; compare this with Alumni Hall, where you actually had to go below court level to find a place to "answer the call".  

Overall, although Mahoney Arena is quite less intimate than its forerunner (the refs can't hear you complain now!), it is also a much more modern and polished facility.  Hopefully, this will have the effect of attracting better recruits, and contributing to a more successful basketball program.  

Alas, Fairfield went down to defeat today, losing to the Siena College Saints by nine points. (3) 

Be that as it may, I completely enjoyed my first visit to the on-campus venue.  If you're a fan of college hoops, a trip to "the Leo" would be well worth your time.