Monthly Archives: July 2017

A Connecticut woman who hurled a variety of insults at a grocery store manager was protected by constitutional free speech rights and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Nina Baccala was arrested in her hometown of Vernon in 2013 after subjecting a Stop & Shop assistant manager to a profanity-laced tirade. Prosecutors said she became enraged when the manager told her it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer.

Baccala called the manager "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names, prosecutors said.

Baccala, 44, was convicted of breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the name calling and insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to constitutional free speech rights.

All seven justices on the state Supreme Court agreed the conviction should be overturned. Four voted in favor of acquittal, while three said there should be a new trial.

Justice Andrew McDonald wrote in the majority opinion that while the words and phrases that Baccala used were "extremely offensive and meant to personally demean" the manager, they were not criminal. He wrote that the evidence was insufficient to support Baccala's conviction under federal constitutional law.

"Uttering a cruel or offensive word is not a crime unless it would tend to provoke a reasonable person to immediately retaliate with violence," McDonald wrote.

He added, "Store managers are routinely confronted by disappointed, frustrated customers who express themselves in angry terms. People in authoritative positions of management and control are expected to diffuse hostile situations."

Prosecutor Mitchell Brody declined to comment Friday. Baccala did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Brody wrote in his opposition to the appeal that Baccala's insults were "fighting words" and that the state's breach of peace law allows prosecution for "abusive language."

The "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights dates back to a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Hampshire case. In that case, Walter Chaplinsky was convicted of breach of peace for cursing at a town marshal in Rochester, New Hampshire, and calling him a "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist."

Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was an exemption to free speech rights for "fighting words," which it defined as words "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

The rest is here:
Court: State Woman's Profanity-laced Tirade Was Protected Free Speech - Hartford Courant

|

Posted: Jul 08, 2017 12:01 AM

As college students prepare to go back to school this fall, they will need to set aside time for a newly minted annual tradition: mandatory sexual harassment training. But as the recent example of Iowa State demonstrates, these mandatory online training programs aimed at educating students about their rights under Title IX may also be creating new First Amendment problems for universities and their students.

According to news reports, Secretary DeVos is evaluating Obama-era guidance to universities that contributed to this confusion about the First Amendment freedoms of students. She should take this opportunity to ensure that universities understand that their moral and legal obligation to protect students from being subjected to sexual harassment and violence does not excuse them fromand need not conflict withtheir constitutional obligation to respect students First Amendment rights.

In 2011, the Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights issued a letter warning universities of a new Title IX emphasis on sexual harassment and violence on campus. That itself is unobjectionable. The problem is that, in 19 pages, the OCR letter failed to even mention that universities must also protect students First Amendment rights, a glaring omission because so many university speech codes were already drafted as if the First Amendment had never been ratified.

In 2014, the Department of Education issued another 46-page guidance document, mandating that every university train students on its harassment policies without requiring that this training even mention student free speech rights. Of course, for-profit firms jumped at the opportunity to help more than 6,000 universities comply with this new federal training mandate for millions of students. The result has been an instant cottage industry of Title IX training programs that generally omit that public universities must also comply with the Constitution.

Iowa State demonstrates how this federal training mandateand its avoidance of the First Amendmenthas been and will be playing out on campuses across America over the next few months. Iowa State sent Robert Dunn and 36,000 other students an e-mail last summer informing him that he must complete an online training program on the universitys Title IX policies. When Robert logged on, he found that there was no mention of any interplay of Title IX or university policies with the First Amendment in any of the 118 slides addressing topics like how students could talk about gender identity.

Most troubling, however, was the final slide, requiring him to certify that he would comply with certain Iowa State speech codes. Upon review, Dunn found that these policies were egregiously unconstitutionaleven warning students that engaging in First Amendment protected speech activities might constitute harassment depending on the circumstances.

Defining true harassment need not be complicated. The Supreme Court has already defined it as conduct so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institutions resources and opportunities. But universities routinely expand the scope of these speech code policies to reach not only true harassment, but constitutionally protected speech to which another may claim offense.

When Dunn inquired about the consequences for not completing this requirement, ISU officials told him that his graduation could be placed on hold and reviewed by the president if he did not sign away his First Amendment rights. ISU believed it had little leeway to waive this requirement for one of its 36,000 students with the federal mandate in place. The Center for Academic Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on Dunns behalf. In April, ISU agreed to revise its harassment policies.

These mandated training programs, at tuition-paying student expense (and, at public universities, taxpayer expense) contribute to a confusion about the First Amendment freedoms of students and create a major compliance problem for universities. Universities are incentivized to subordinate students free speech rights to federal Title IX demands. And tomorrows judges, legislators, and voters learn that their First Amendment rights are, at best, an afterthought.

Secretary DeVos has repeatedly affirmed the importance of free speech on the university campus. She should ensure universities provide students with a working knowledge of the First Amendment and take this opportunity to clarify that public universities can claim no Title IX safe harbor for violating their students constitutionally protected freedoms.

Here is the original post:
Secretary DeVos Can Bring Needed Clarity to Campus Free Speech - Townhall

GUEST: Laila Abdelaziz, 2017 Kairos Fellow and Campaigner with Fight For The Future

BACKGROUND: A poll by Politico and Morning Consult recently found 60% support among the public for the Federal Communications Commission's existing rules on Net Neutrality. The Obama-era rules were put in place after years of campaigning by grassroots activists who want to prevent the Internet from becoming a corporatized space. But Donald Trump's new FCC Chair Ajit Pai wants to do away with the rules that currently restrain major Internet Service Providers such Comcast, Time-Warner and AT&T from upending Net Neutrality.

Across the political spectrum, advocacy groups, content creators, and even major online websites like Twitter, Amazon, Netflix, Reddit, Vimeo, and Etsy are converging on a "Day of Action" next Wednesday the 12th of July to protest Ajit Pai's plan to end Net Neutrality. On that day, thousands of websites will display messages urging their users to send letters and comments supporting Net Neutrality. The online action may break the previous record of Internet activism in 2012 against two bills called SOPA and PIPA.

Read the original post:
'Day of Action' For Net Neutrality May Be Largest Ever - Free Speech TV