Connecticut Man Arrested For Writing Obscenity On Traffic Ticket Payment Form

from the when-free-speech-costs-quite-a-bit dept

As someone who uses obscene words the way most people use commas, I always take a special interest when cursing butts up against free speech rights. After all, I certainly don't want to live in a world where I can't call some obnoxious jerk a [removed by editor] or a [removed by editor]. Such acts are the spice of life. Yet not everyone agrees, such as when courts rule against fantasy stories as obscene, or when the American public is forced to endure a half-a-second glimpse of a single nipple-less breast. Even Christmas has been rendered unsafe for the holy masses. But in none of those cases was the purveyor of salty language directing it squarely towards those who could levy judgement against them.

That honor goes to Willian Barboza, who was issued a speeding ticket last year in the Catskills town of Liberty, and chose to send a bit of a message while mailing in his guilty-plea fine when he wrote "F@#$ your sh#*$y town b&$#@es." The court decided that Barboza's admittedly witless prose was worth rejecting his payment altogether and charging him for aggravated harrassment, a strange state law that says it's a violation when someone:

“Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm …

You can see the problem already. This is about as unconstitutional a law as you could possibly write, one which seems to think that the whole first amendment doesn't exist. Hell, if annoying someone anonymously via written communication was illegal everywhere, the courts would be full of a certain percentage of Techdirt commenters. That, fortunately, is not the case (you're welcome, trolls), which is why the NYCLU filed suit on behalf of Barboza for pain, suffering and humiliation. The courts, thankfully, listened.

A municipal judge on March 22, 2013 finally dismissed the charge against Barboza, stating that while his words were “crude, vulgar, inappropriate and clearly intended to annoy,” that the First Amendment protects Barboza’s speech.

“No citation is necessary for this Court to determine that the language under the circumstances here, offensive as it is, is protected,” stated Town of Fallsburg Justice Ivan Kalter.

I don't believe the decision renders the law inactive, but it seems pretty clear that it is untenable in its own jurisdiction when judges are unwilling to rule for it. Whatever process it takes to get that clearly unconstitutional law off the books needs to begin immediately, or else Fallsburg might just be the shitty town Barboza alledges.

Filed Under: arrests, free speech, obscenities, parking tickets, willian barboza

Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights

from the fcc-malfunction dept

Would you believe that the FCC, CBS and the courts are still fighting over the FCC's right to fine CBS over Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the half-time show of the Superbowl in 2004 (yes, seven years ago). There have actually been a series of related cases bouncing up and down through the court system, trying to establish whether or not the FCC's policies on "fleeting expletives" or "fleeting nudity" are arbitrary and if they violate the First Amendment. A court had originally found the FCC's policies to be arbitrary and tossed them out. The Supreme Court, in a related but different case (focusing on the fleeting expletives), ruled extremely narrowly that the FCC was allowed to change its policies, but did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself. The Second Circuit appeals court then ruled that even if the rule change was allowed, it still violated the First Amendment. From that, the court then asked -- if such rules on fleeting expletives are not allowed -- does that also cover fleeting nudity -- but that involved a separate case involving a scene of a bare rear end on NYPD Blue. But, of course, the Janet Jackson case, in the Third Circuit, also is relevant here as well.

Which brings us mostly up-to-date, other than the latest news in the Janet Jackson case, which is that the FCC is now trying to claim that broadcasters give up some of their First Amendment rights when they get a government license to broadcast over public airwaves. This seems like a huge stretch as a legal interpretation, which would have serious implications for anyone using public airwaves. I don't recall the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make no law... except if it involves public airwaves." Either way, as the article linked above notes, this will all be going back to the Supreme Court eventually.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, janet jackson, obscenities, wardrove malfunction
Companies: cbs, fcc