Finally, some respect for us vulgarians!
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a woman who vulgarly insulted the assistant manager at a supermarket was protected by free speech rights under the constitution and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor.
In 2013, Nina Baccala was detained in Vernon when she used profanity to insult an assistant Stop & Shop manager. She allegedly became angry when the manager told her that it was past time to complete a money transfer via Western Union.
Ms. Baccala was found guilty of breaching the peace and received a sentence of 25 days’ jailtime.
The case was appealed, and Ms. Baccala’s lawyer argued that insults and name calling do not come under the “fighting words” exception to free speech rights under the constitution.
All of the Supreme Court justices agreed that her sentence should be thrown out. Specifically, four were in favor of an acquittal, and three voted for a new trial.
In writing for the majority, Justice McDonald explained that while the words that Ms. Baccala said to the manager were offensive, they were not criminal.
Additionally, under Federal constitutional law, the evidence presented was not sufficient to corroborate Ms. Baccala’s conviction. Justice McDonald noted that saying words that are offensive or cruel is not criminal unless this would cause a “reasonable person” to retaliate immediately with violence.
Justice McDonald added that managers are quite often confronted by upset and frustrated patrons who angrily express themselves. Managers and those in positions of authority are expected to deflate a hostile or fraught situation.
The prosecutor argued on appeal that Ms. Baccala’s tirade should be considered “fighting words,” and Connecticut’s law regarding breach of peace law grants individuals to be prosecuted for “abusive language.”
The exemption for “fighting words” in the rights of free speech started with a decision by the United States Supreme Court from 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the Supreme Court spelled out the fighting words doctrine, which was a limit on the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Attorney Peter Billings commented, “This ruling correctly protects the free speech rights of Connecticut’s citizens and Ms. Baccala was rightfully exonerated.”
