A recent news article reports on a case where a woman acted like a scumbag but was apparently within her First Amendment rights. Everything about it is strange, and everyone seems to be wrong in important ways.
The article says: “Minnesota prosecutors filed misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges Tuesday against a woman accused of using a racist slur against a Black child at a playground — an incident the woman has since used to raise more than $800,000 after she appealed for help with relocating.” The article doesn’t give her exact words, but the linked official document says she used “the N-word” more than once. The charge is engaging “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language that would reasonably tend to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others.”
The woman appears to be a piece of dirt, but insulting people is protected under the First Amendment. I can call her dirt without fear of legal punishment, just as she can call children whatever she wants. Going by the article, there’s no case against her. A competent lawyer should be able to get the charges dismissed. If she doesn’t have much money, a fundraiser to get a few thousand for legal expenses might be in order. But the goal in her fundraiser is a million dollars, and she isn’t using a lawyer. How can that be necessary for what sounds like a straightforward case?
People can set any goals they want for fundraisers, subject to the hosting site’s rules, but the strange thing is that she’s actually raised over $800,000. It’s for “relocating.” And the article says she’s representing herself in court, so she isn’t even using the money to pay a lawyer. What’s her desire to move got to do with the case? I wouldn’t mind an extra million dollars to get a nicer home, but I wouldn’t expect people to give it to me. This doesn’t sound like defenders of free speech overlooking the defendant’s character for the sake of principles. It sounds much uglier.
An NAACP chapter has been pushing for legal action against the woman, declaring that the child “was victimized and traumatized with the racist and hateful rhetoric and actions.” This is a bad time to argue for narrowing the scope of the First Amendment. The Trump administration is making a much broader war on free speech, with immigrants and foreign visitors as the main targets. To protect everybody, the First Amendment has to protect disgusting people who say disgusting things.
There might have been a legitimate case against the woman on other grounds. If you yell at a small child, it could easily rise to the level of harassment. I don’t know what Minnesota law is in such situations, but it seems reasonable to criminalize directed actions that seriously frighten a small child. That’s not what the charge is, though. The cited legal standard is “anger, alarm, or resentment.” That’s the language of censorship. Someone expressing unpopular political views could be charged under that law. If she can be convicted, why can’t a flag burner?
Everybody’s wrong. The woman shouldn’t be charged, but people shouldn’t throw a million dollars her way.