Students’ arrest over slur prompts review of ridicule law

HWH ClipBoard: Since when do people get arrested for misdemeanors? First time offense? You can’t talk in parking lots? Too loud for a college campus? Whoa. I live in Cleveland, if that were the case, every African in the city would be arrested for talking too loud and being “disruptive”. 

Frankly, these guys don’t look white to me. But hey, in the USA, anyone not African is considered white. What difference does color make? You mean if these two had been colored black, it would have been okay for two friends to ‘nigger’ each other – out loud?

Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj are not white colored people’s names. So, a black colored person secretly recorded them? For what reason other than to do harm? Isn’t it suspect that a black colored person just happened by? 

Maybe black colored people should make friends instead of sneaking up and recording people and then calling the police to arrest them. That’s not how you make friends. Stay out of other people’s conversations is my advice.

In other words, mind your own business.

Campus police have nothing better to do? No rapes going on? No gay-on-gay rapes going on? No sexist behavior by professors going on? No sex favors for high grades going on? No drug dealing? No partying even? No fist fights?

Harassing Eastern Europeans on college campuses? That’s what African blacks are assigned to do by their leaders for past grievances against black colored people in America?

How ignorant can that black colored person be? They thought these two guys were white? Maybe this colored black person should learn while in university (meaning studies encompassing the whole world and its people) that there are more than black and white people in the world, with as many ethnicities as there are countries, territories and regions.

Originally they were arrested for using racial slurs to each other. Later after lawyers got involved they changed the reason for arrest to be talking too loud in the parking lot. 

Arrested?? Unbelievable.


Associated Press

FILE – These 2019 file booking photos provided by the University of Connecticut Police Department show UConn students Jarred Mitchell Karal, left, and Ryan Mucaj, who were arrested in 2019 for shouting a racial slur outside a campus apartment complex. They were charged under a 1917 law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who ridicules or holds up to contempt certain classes of people. Professors and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union raised free speech concerns after the arrests. A public hearing is scheduled for Friday, Feb. 21, 2020, on a bill before the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee that would repeal the law. (UConn Police Department via AP, File)

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Free speech concerns that were raised following the arrests of two University of Connecticut students accused of saying a racial slur have led state legislators to consider repealing a century-old law that bans ridicule based on race, religion or nationality.

The episode on campus involving two white students in October was recorded on video and sparked protests against racism. Many people applauded their arrests, but civil liberties groups condemned them as an affront to First Amendment rights.

Police said the students, Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj, uttered the racial slur several times while walking through the parking lot of a campus apartment complex and were recorded by a black student. They said that they were playing a game that involved saying offensive words and that it was not directed at anyone in particular.

They were charged under a 1917 law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone who “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.”

A bill before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee would repeal the law, which has been criticized by law professors around the country and other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the students’ conduct was offensive but not criminal.

A public hearing was held Friday on the bill — whose full title is “An Act Repealing the Prohibition Against Ridicule of Another Person on Account of Creed, Religion, Color, Denomination, Nationality or Race.”

“I know the title sort of sounds like, whoa, what are they doing,” said state Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. “But … the issue as to whether someone can really face criminal charges for something that has some real questionable constitutionality, I think, is at least worth discussing at this point in time.”

According to state court records, the ridicule charge, which carries up to 30 days in jail, has been filed 40 times since 2012, resulting in 10 convictions. Only one of the convictions included jail time.

Critics say the law appears to be among only a few such state laws in the country.

“It is so clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment that it’s hard to believe that it’s still on the books,” said William Dunlap, a professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law in North Haven, Connecticut. “It punishes speech based on the content of the speech, and that it is one of the key concepts of the First Amendment — that the government cannot punish speech based on its content.”

Douglas Spencer, a UConn law professor, added the state ridicule law, in theory, could be used to arrest comedians who make fun of others.

“I don’t think the old statute would survive a constitutional challenge,” Spencer said.

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP, said that the bill to repeal the law raises serious concerns and that he will seek opinions from civil rights lawyers and NAACP officials about the proposal.

The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities has asked the Judiciary Committee to reject the repeal bill, in written testimony for the hearing.

“At a time when hate and bias incidents are on the rise, it is critical that the state not remove these types of prohibitions that aim to deter or punish this unacceptable behavior,” the commission said.

The Judiciary Committee received written testimony from three other people, all in favor of repeal. During the hearing on Friday, when testimony on several other bills was heard, only one person talked about the repeal bill and did not take a position either for or against, Kissel said.

Karal, of Plainville, has been granted a probation program that could result in his criminal charges being dismissed, while the criminal case is pending for Mucaj, of Granby.

The two students have filed a federal lawsuit against the university, saying they were being punished in violation of their free speech rights. A judge ruled last month that the school cannot discipline the students, including barring them from student housing, while the criminal cases are pending.

In defending UConn, the state attorney general’s office has filed court documents saying UConn officials deny any proposed discipline is based on the students’ use of racial slurs, but instead is based on their violation of the “disruptive behavior” provision of the student code…

Source: Students’ arrest over slur prompts review of ridicule law


Published by Sharon Lee Davies-Tight, artist, writer/author, animal-free chef, activist

CHEF DAVIES-TIGHT™. AFC Private Reserve™. THE ANIMAL-FREE CHEF™. The Animal-Free Chef Prime Content™. ANIMAL-FREE SOUS-CHEF™. Animal-Free Sous-Chef Prime Content™. ANIMAL-FAT-FREE CHEF™. Fat-Free Chef Prime Content™. AFC GLOBAL PLANTS™. THE TOOTHLESS CHEF™. WORD WARRIOR DAVIES-TIGHT™. Word Warrior Premium Content™. HAPPY WHITE HORSE™. Happy White Horse Premium Content™. SHARON ON THE NEWS™. SHARON'S FAMOUS LITTLE BOOKS™. SHARON'S BOOK OF PROSE™. CHALLENGED BY HANDICAP™. BIRTH OF A SEED™. LOCAL UNION 141™. Till now and forever © Sharon Lee Davies-Tight, Artist, Author, Animal-Free Chef, Activist. ARCHITECT of 5 PRINCIPLES TO A BETTER LIFE™ & MAINSTREAM ANIMAL-FREE CUISINE™.

%d bloggers like this: