Judge Protects Cursing: In Doing So, She Protects The Constitution

When a federal judge protects cursing in a high-profile case, you might think you’re part of an episode of The Outer Limits. I mean, isn’t that what the First Amendment of the Constitution exists for? To protect freedom of speech? That’s what I always thought. However, as the New York Times reports, at least one jurisdiction in the U.S. feels as though their authority usurps the Constitution.

Connecticut resident William M. Barboza was slapped with a speeding ticket while driving through the rural Upstate town of Liberty. The passer-through was less than thrilled, as most of us are when we’re on the receiving end of a citation. When he sent his payment back to the court, he included a few choice (albeit offensive) words, which he scrawled on the ticket.

How cool is it that I can now yell F**k your s**tty town! in Liberty, NY and everyone will smile and nod @ each other?http://t.co/SXFawUDViC

— BlurtShoutDefame – American Discourse (@DScanlan126) September 16, 2015

No big deal, right? Cursing is Constitution and all, no? Sticks and stones and so forth?

Not so fast. While Barboza thought he was well within his rights to speak (or write) his thoughts on his ticket, the Liberty authorities had other ideas. The Connecticut resident found himself summoned back to court in New York for cursing, verbally berated by a judge for his potty mouth (hand?), arrested and spending several hours in jail.

One can’t be incarcerated forever for venting their spleen on a speeding ticket, though. Following Mr. Barboza’s release, he took the only logical step to prevent others from being judiciously bullied for cursing: he filed a lawsuit against the officers, town, and judge. He claimed they collectively and individually violated his rights. Just last week, federal judge Cathy Seibel ruled that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights had been violated by the town, paving the way for his cursing suit to proceed to trial.

NY Village Must Stand Trial for Arresting Man Who Wrote Curse Words on Speeding Ticket | NBC New York http://t.co/BXAIrgWY2F via @nbcnewyork

— KKC-Anti-Fascist Resists.#WearADamnMask (@KarenChestney) September 16, 2015

It turns out that Liberty has a history of arresting people for cursing, or even just using negative or offensive language that might be heard on any elementary school playground in the U.S. Newsmax reports that over 60 people were arrested or cited for cursing between 2003 and 2012. While the current federal judge in the case is addressing cursing directly, some of the defendants cited by Liberty were reportedly picked up for “cursing” for using the word “sl*t” or “pig,” the latter in reference to a police officer.

While the Liberty judge and police argue that cursing is just cause for arrest or citation “because of the use of vulgar words in what may be perceived as a threatening context,” federal judge Seibel clearly believes that the town is overstepping its bounds. She also refused to mince words regarding how the Constitution protects cursing and how the officers in town don’t know their Constitution.

“The village has no requirement to ensure its officers are trained on the First Amendment.”

In layman’s terms, the people running the show in Liberty aren’t even bothering to ensure their cops are versed in Constitutional law at all.

To be fair, the fact that the town doesn’t require their officers to know the law may not be as beneficial to this case about cursing as one might think. Back in 2014, it was ruled that an officer’s ignorance of the law isn’t necessarily a compromising factor in a case, the Examiner reported.

Be that as it may, when it comes down to what a judge decides, the devil may be in the details. While the Supreme Court ruled that an officer’s ignorance of the law is (sometimes) okay, the facts of each case vary widely. The judge dealing with this case, which protects cursing in Liberty and nationwide, has focused on a specific prosecutor: Sullivan County Assistant District Attorney Robert Zangla. Contrary to many civil suits against specific jurisdictions, the Liberty prosecutor’s actions leading up to this case has exempted him from immunity.

Ultimately, this case in which a federal judge protects cursing (for the time being) figures of authority is about much more than a single man’s anger over a speeding ticket. It’s about the Constitutionally guaranteed rights which are supposed to be unalienable to U.S. citizens.

Did his words offend the judge, clerk, or town officials in Liberty? Clearly. However, cursing has repeatedly been ruled to be protected free speech. The town of Liberty argues that they can arrest someone for cursing because it can be deemed to be “threatening.” How threatened could they possibly have been by words written on a piece of paper and received in the mail from hundreds of miles away?

They were certainly not feeling too threatened by William Barboza to order that he return to the scene of the crime for a public tongue-lashing by the local judge.

“Instead of protecting freedom of speech, government officers in Liberty handcuffed me, arrested me for a crime, and almost sent me to jail because I harmlessly expressed my frustration with a speeding ticket.”

The way this federal judge ultimately rules on this cursing case will have widespread implications for all U.S. citizens. When a judge protects cursing, she protects the Constitution.

[Photo Credit: New York Civil Liberties Union/William Barboza]