![]() In 2019, two University of Connecticut students were arreste d for reportedly yelling the N-word while walking back to their apartment after a night of drinking. That challenge to 53-37 has come, and it is working its way through the judicial system at a time when inflamed national tensions over race, sexual and gender orientation, and nationality have some questioning the limits of free speech in a society that seems hell-bent on not being nice to each other. “But it’s really hard to enforce that and have it hold up if it was to truly be challenged in a federal court or challenged on First Amendment grounds.” “I understand what the intention is, in regards to the law,” Harris continued. “One of the things that many students and many people are not aware of is that the First Amendment protects hate speech, and there have been a number of cases where it’s been upheld that people do have the right to use hate language, whether it’s the n-word or antisemitic statements or even to make fun of somebody, not just for racial reasons but for any reason,” Harris said. “Generally speaking, I would be very surprised that if someone challenged that law, they would not win in court,” said Frank Harris III, a professor of journalism at Southern Connecticut State University who teaches a class on freedom of speech and has studied the use of racial slurs throughout history. ![]() It is the only law that would potentially be applicable in the Enfield case since the threat of violence was not confirmed, but that law is currently in legal limbo due to a federal lawsuit that has Connecticut’s statute banning ridicule bumping up against the First Amendment.Īnd the way the statute is written has many experts saying it will not hold up to the challenge. Most of Connecticut’s laws regarding bigotry and bias crimes are tied to actual violent acts - or at least the credible threat of violent acts through intimidation and harassment - that cause damage to either one’s person or their physical property.īut there is a law on Connecticut’s books that makes “ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race” a Class D misdemeanor.Īccording to CGS 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.” During the community meeting, Enfield Police Chief Alaric Fox reportedly told the community that use of a racial slur, while ugly, was not against the law. The use of a racial slur against the teenager, however, was not in dispute. The police were unable to bring charges regarding the threat of violence because there was not enough evidence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |