Harassment

'Degrading and Vile' Modification of Colleague's Wedding Photo Was Protected Speech

The New Jersey Supreme Court narrowly construes a ban on annoying conduct to avoid First Amendment problems.

|

Union County Department of Corrections

When William Burkert, a corrections officer at the Union County Jail in Elizabeth, New Jersey, wrote "degrading and vile dialogue" on a colleague's wedding photo and printed copies of it, his actions were "boorish, crude, utterly unprofessional, and hurtful." But they were not criminal, according to a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that narrowly construes a state ban on annoying speech to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment.

The ruling, issued yesterday, does not say how old Burkert was at the time of the 2011 incident. But it mentions that he had worked as a corrections officer "for more than twenty years," so we are talking about a middle-aged man, as opposed to a 20-year-old (or a 12-year-old), which is hard to believe when you hear the details of Burkert's spat with Sgt. Gerald Hatton, who also worked at the Union County Jail (and whose name is for some reason rendered "Halton" in yesterday's decision, although it was "Hatton" in the lower courts and in a related civil suit).

Burkert and Hatton did not get along, partly because they were active in rival police unions (the Policemen's Benevolent Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, respectively). "The tension became much more acute when Burkert learned that [Hatton's] wife was posting derogatory comments about him and his family on a public internet forum," Justice Barry Albin notes in the majority opinion. Specifically, Laura Hatton described Burkert and his two brothers (who were also corrections officers) as bullies, called Burkert "fat," and said one of his brothers was "quirky" and "kind of retarded."

Burkert retaliated by downloading a wedding photo that Laura Hatton had posted and using it to create two flyers, each inscribed with speech bubbles. In one flyer, Burkert had Gerald Hatton say, "I know I'm a pussy with a little dick. Don't do the inmates please Laura." In the bride's speech bubble, Burkert wrote, "I wish you had a cock like the inmates." In the second flyer, Burkert put these words in the groom's mouth: "Fam, I got me another whore." Both flyers were not-so-sly references to Hatton's first wife, "a former corrections officer who he claimed had relations with another officer and an inmate."

Hatton came across the first flyer in the jail's parking garage on January 8, 2011. The next day, a sergeant handed him a copy of the second flyer, which the sergeant said he had found near the officers' locker room. Two days later, while Hatton was engaged in union negotiations, a lieutenant handed him another copy of the second flyer, saying, "This came out the other night." Hatton, who like Burkert had worked as a corrections officer for more than two decades, was so rattled that he went home and never returned to work.

Hatton recognized Burkert's handwriting on the flyers, and during an internal investigation Burkert admitted creating them but denied distributing him. In addition to suing Burkert and his brothers (along with the Union County Department of Corrections and its director), Hatton pursued criminal charges under a New Jersey law that defines the petty disorderly persons offense of harassment to include repeated acts committed "with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy" someone. Burkert, who retired from his corrections job in 2012, was convicted of two counts of harassment and fined $500 for each. Last year an appeals court overturned his convictions, concluding that "the commentary [Burkert] added to [Hatton's] wedding photograph was constitutionally protected speech."

Upholding that decision yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted that the harassment statute, on its face, covers speech protected by the First Amendment. "Criminal laws targeting speech that are not clearly drawn are anathema to the First Amendment and our state constitutional analogue because they give the government broad authority to prosecute protected expressive activities and do not give fair notice of what the law proscribes," Justice Albin writes. "Such laws also chill permissible speech because people, fearful that their utterances may subject them to criminal prosecution, may not give voice to their thoughts."

To avoid these problems, the court defines harassing speech to include only "repeated communications directed at a person that reasonably put that person in fear for his safety or security or that intolerably interfere with that person's reasonable expectation of privacy." The court concludes that Burkert's actions did not meet this test.

Albin notes that creating and distributing the flyers did not involve repeated communications directed at Hatton. And although Burkert's actions were "boorish, crude, utterly unprofessional, and hurtful," not to mention "grossly inappropriate" in a workplace, they "did not threaten or menace" Hatton, and "nothing in the record suggests that [Hatton's] safety or security [was] put at risk by the flyers, or that any inmates got ahold of them." Nor did Burkert intolerably interfere with Hatton's reasonable expectation of privacy, since "the rude and loutish dialogue on the flyers obliquely referred to a matter apparently of common knowledge among many corrections officers."

Hard as it may be to sympathize with Burkert, the harassment statute as written was dangerously broad, and it is not hard to imagine how it might be deployed against people engaged in more substantive speech, such as gadflies who "seriously annoy" public officials. "The free-speech guarantees of our federal and state constitutions safeguard not only polite and decorous conversation and debate but also speech that we hate—speech that is crude, obnoxious and boorish," Albin observes. "A commitment to free speech requires that we tolerate communications of which we strongly disapprove."

NEXT: D.C. Allowed to Exclude Religious Ads from Buses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. My takeaway from this is that Hatton probably does have a little dick.

      1. “Well, that’s what I heard…”

        1. “Vile and degrading” was the wrong way to go. They needed to argue that the inappropriate fliers were printed with the intent to cause damage to Haddock’s reputation. Compare the reasoning of the courts in America’s leading criminal “satire” case, documented at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. “Haddock”? Blistering barnacles, it’s *Hatton*, you bashi-bazouk!

            1. Meh, what kind of a name is “Hatton”? I prefer my version. Makes for a more ringing argument, fits nicer with an appropriately narrow reading of the First Amendment.

              1. I’m pretty sure an appropriately narrower reading of the First Amendment doesn’t have room for “vicious lies”, Don.

              2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

              3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

  1. …partly because they were active in rival police unions (the Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, respectively).

    I picture the scene in Gangs of New York with the rival fire companies.

    1. I picture that scene in South Park where Timmy and Jimmy fight in the parking lot.

      1. CRIPPLE FIIIIIIGHT

  2. “”Justice Albin observes. “A commitment to free speech requires that we tolerate communications of which we strongly disapprove.”””

    That will have the liberals howling at the moon again.

  3. To avoid these problems, the court defines harassing speech to include only “repeated communications directed at a person that reasonably put that person in fear for his safety…”

    This opening a whole other can of worms in that we suddenly live in a world where “law enforcement” can’t for themselves define into law what makes them fear for their safety.

    1. Law enforcement fear for their safety in retrospect after they commit acts that have no legal or moral justification.

    2. The legal standard for whether a law enforcement officer feared for his or her life is the presence of one or more bullet-riddled corpses.

  4. Just goes to show how much toddlers and police have in common..

  5. Should have nailed the guy for copyright infringement.

    1. If there WEREN’T speech bubbles with derogatory phrases, he might have a case. Might.

  6. wrote “degrading and vile dialogue” on a colleague’s wedding photo and printed copies of it

    at the time of the 2011 incident.

    I blame, in order; Comcast, Ajit Pai, Bill Clinton.

  7. Both flyers were not-so-sly references to Hatton’s first wife, “a former corrections officer who he claimed had relations with another officer and an inmate.”

    Having had dealings with various law enforcement/prison agencies, I can tell you I’ve never seen a more incestuous professional group, with all the secretive swapping of sexual partners. It’s never as hidden as they think it will be.

    1. A good number of my social circle are state corrections officers – and yeah, these guys (and gals) are fucking crazy.

  8. Wait – Laura Hatton starts it by using social media to make fun of Burkert’s family, and we’re supposed to be upset that Burkert retaliated?

    1. Only if you feel like sworn law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard than your average middle schooler.

      1. Personally, I have no problem with what he did. If he gets fired, that’s up to the the city and whomever else has a say in it.
        He had a first amendment right to say it. Using the government to try and shut people up is worse, imo.

  9. Burkert and Hatton did not get along, partly because they were active in rival police unions (the Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, respectively).

    This whole thing is hilarious.

    1. It’s the People’s Front of Judea against the Judean Peoples’ Front.

      1. SPLITTERS!

      2. I thought they were the Popular Front.

  10. So the speech is protected. Was the use of the photo protected? Would this be a Fair Use of the photo though? That is, could Hatton (or the original photographer) prevail in a copyright infringement suit? Even at $750/flyer, that might be a hefty fine.

    1. Odds are, the copyright is owned by the wedding photographer, who is unlikely to want to touch this mess with an 11-foot pole.

  11. Who sues someone or tries to get them to go to jail because their feelings were hurt by a flyer? These dudes are a bunch of grade a *insert derogatory word*

    I wouldn’t even care. Then again I would never become involved in something so ridiculous. Why did their superiors even let this crap escalate to this?

  12. You’re FIRED! was the only reasonable option and of course he was allowed to retire instead.

  13. I think I would have closed my decision (if I were the judge) with ‘and now, Bailiff – hold Mr Burkett down while Mr Halton – ‘ ‘Hatton, your Honor’ ‘Who the fuck cares – beats the ever-loving shit out of him for . . . two minutes.’

  14. I’m pretty happy with the decision: nobody would think it a good idea to ban the use of rattles by rattlesnakes.

    The proper result would be to require the offending officer to grow up. He’s too juvenile to have other people’s lives in his care. If that didn’t work, he could be considered a danger to others in some aspects of his job, and possibly fired.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.