In South Carolina, What You Say During Protests Could Land You in Jail
Brittany Martin, who is pregnant, was sentenced to four years in prison after telling police they'd "better be ready to die for the blue. I'm ready to die for the black."

In June 2020, Brittany Martin attended a Black Lives Matter protest in Sumter, South Carolina. There, she used strong language when speaking to police officers. "Some of us gon' be hurting. And some of y'all gon' be hurting," she said. "We ready to die for this. We tired of it. You better be ready to die for the blue. I'm ready to die for the black."
While Martin did not physically attack officers, she was arrested on June 4 and charged with five counts of threatening the life of a public official and one count of instigating, aiding, or participating in a riot. She was later indicted on a "breach of peace, high and aggravated" charge. According to the Associated Press, the jury acquitted Martin of the riot-related charge and reached no verdict on whether she threatened police officers' lives. The jury only found Martin guilty of "breaching the peace," which is typically punishable by a $500 fine and 30 days in jail. But prosecutors filed the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, and Martin was ultimately sentenced to four years in prison.
"She's in jail because she talked in America," Sybil Dione Rosado, Martin's trial attorney told the A.P. "She's a dark-skinned Black woman who is unapologetically Black and radical."
Breach of peace laws typically pertain to conduct that is categorically exempted from First Amendment protection, like playing loud music late at night or fighting in public. But they can also cover obscene or abusive language in public spaces. Martin's speech occurred at a protest though, making the situation more difficult to categorize.
However, if Martin's conviction were to be challenged on free speech grounds, it is possible it would still be upheld under the "fighting words doctrine." Many state courts have found that cussing and yelling at police officers is a form of fighting words. While Martin did not curse at the police, the fighting words doctrine does not require speech to be profane. Rather, as Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy wrote in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
It is difficult to know precisely how a court would rule on Martin's speech. "While the Court has invalidated many convictions in fighting words cases, the doctrine remains alive and well in some state courts," law professor David L. Hudson Jr. wrote for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in 2017. "Even so, the cases are all over the map as to whether an individual's profane outbursts cross the line into unprotected fighting words."
Further, Rosado claims that during Martin's trial, the judge did not allow her to explain to the jury that the "high and aggravated" distinction would lead to the possibility of a longer sentence for Martin.
Most state courts prohibit defense attorneys from telling juries the sentencing impact of a guilty verdict. What often results is "the jury decides to split the baby…. They don't like the prosecution, they don't like the case, and they will acquit on a number of charges," Missy Owen, a lawyer who serves on the board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, tells Reason, "and then maybe convict on what sounds to be the most minor of charges, which sometimes ends up not being minor at all."
"Ms. Martin's sentence of four years of active time for her conviction of BOPHAN [breach of peace, high and aggravated] is more than four times as long as even the lengthiest sentences for the same offense in the Third Circuit," wrote civil rights lawyer and former South Carolina state lawmaker Bakari Sellers in a memorandum in support of a motion to reconsider Martin's sentence, which was obtained by Reason. "In addition to that disparity, it is worth noting that numerous individuals convicted of federal crimes for violently assaulting police officers while storming the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021 received lower sentences than Ms. Martin."
Martin is pregnant and due in November. According to the A.P., "Martin said her body 'can't get comfortable with the baby' and as of July, she lost 12 pounds while incarcerated, despite the pregnancy." During her imprisonment, she has twice been rushed to the hospital by ambulance, once due to contractions and another time because she began preterm labor at 25 weeks.
According to Sellers' memorandum, while South Carolina bans the shackling of incarcerated women during childbirth, if Martin remains in prison, South Carolina Department of Corrections policy mandates that she be separated from her newborn within hours of delivery and returned to prison. Her child will be placed into foster care.
All because she talked trash to a cop at a protest against police abuse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why put so many hyperlinks in this article when you're only linking to two different things?
You've got at least three links to the Defendant's motion to appeal sentencing and several links to that same AP story. This feels like high-school level scholarship where you don't have enough sources so you try to pad out your cites by sneakily making repeated references back to the same thing.
It's a Friday afternoon in DC; those cocktails aren't going to drink themselves.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (caf-06) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
-------------------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Typically reason does that when too many potential sources contradict the narrative. I doubt you'll ever see them link to prosecution documents when they're flacking for the defendant.
There were, in fact, riots in Sumter, and her remarks certainly sounded like threats to me. And she's a real piece of work, based on her record.
So did a violent riot occur at this protest? If so, were any police injured?
What she was quoted as saying could be construed as an incitement to violence specifically against police. If not, well then perhaps there are other cases where we can dismiss charges against protesters as merely venting steam.
Supposedly she was found not-guilty of incitement, so I'd say it's unfair to sentence her based on crimes she wasn't found guilty of. But given this is entirely a defense-focused narrative I'd at least like to peek and how the other side characterizes it. All their links to documents are defense documents.
But since these were protests that she definitely organized that took place over multiple days, I need more information. Was she intentionally blocking roads? Preventing people from going about their daily lives? Or is this solely about what she said to police officers?
The defendant's sentence structure suggests justice would be better served by a sentence of four years in a Grammarly ankle bracelet for contributing to the delinquency of a minor language
According to the article she said it to a cop's face.
The world is not ready for the computer translation of this into Tok Pisin and Bislama.
So she's willing to die for her beliefs but 4 years in prison is intolerable? Sounds like she might not be quite so brave as she believes herself to be. But she did threaten the state, which is a big no-no these days. She's lucky they didn't try for the death penalty.
She needs to read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Aside from such a one-sided article ...
If a cop had said he was willing to die for the blue, was she willing to die for the black, there'd be riots all over the country for weeks.
I detest modern cops, the QI, the privileges, the thin blue line. But all that is the favoritism they get. Here, someone rioting in support of a group known for its violence, its Burn Loot Murder modus operandi, makes a threat which the cop could not get away with, and if I'm going to whine when cops get away with bullshit, I'm also going to be glad when BLM thugs make stupid threats and don't get away with it.
If all she did was speak, though, that's absolutely free speech, constitutionally protected. I just think there's probably a bit more nuance than what the article says she's in prison for. She has some other criminal convictions, like hospitalizing a teenaged son by hitting him with her SUV and driving away, telling him she hoped he would die.
Not sure if that's the same son of hers who was later shot and killed outside a convenience store, or if it's a different son. It'd be kind of a huge coincidence if it was the same son she'd said he wished would die, though.
True threats and fighting words are not protected, per the Supreme Court, and if a BLM supporter at a BLM riot threatens death, it comes closer to fighting words and a true threat.
But that's wasn't my main point, which is that I detest cops for the favoritism they have accumulated, but if a cop had reversed those words back at her, he'd be in deep doo-doo, and if I want goose sauce applied to ganders, it's only fair that gander sauce be applied to gooses.
The fighting words doctrine can (or at least should) have no relevance here since that doctrine assumes that the words are so bad that they will immediately trigger a violent emotional reaction from a reasonable hearer. Since the officers who were the target of those words also heard them and did not react violently or emotionally (and the officers were presumably of no stronger or weaker moral character than the average), that is pretty strong evidence that what she said was not "fighting words". I think she's got a reasonable shot at a free-speech argument during appeal.
I'm failing to muster any empathy or sympathy. She sounds like a wackadoodle. Her body can't get "comfortable" with her pregnancy. She won't cut her dreads despite the prison policy. She is part of the BLM mind virus.
"In November 2020, Martin received 7 years probation for willful intent to injure and leaving a crime scene in Iowa, where in August 2019, her teenage son had accused her of purposely hitting him with her SUV and driving away. Iowa court documents allege that Martin told her son -- who wound up hospitalized with minor injuries -- that she hoped he would die." ...
"“It’s been times in this prison where I have started giving up for a second, mentally and emotionally,” Martin said. “It seemed like the Holy Spirit just put that spoon in my mouth, like ‘Come on, you’ve got to eat. You’ve got to get up.’”“I had to think about my babies. I had to think about my love for them, which is why I’m even in this situation,” she said.
Sounds like Ms. Martin likes to keeps it real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3U55usfJK8
I'm trying really hard to care.
It sounds like a threat to me. Even in this one-sided narrative it sounds like she threatened the cops and a bunch of information of what followed was intentionally left out. I want more context and want to know what actions were taken. It's possible she has been overcharged, but that's hard to assert when we only hear a cherry picked defense.
"She's a dark-skinned Black woman who is unapologetically Black and radical."
Referring to your clients skin color three times in one sentence. What idiot times we live in.
"She's in jail because she talked in America," Sybil Dione Rosado, Martin's trial attorney told the A.P. "She's a dark-skinned Black woman who is unapologetically Black and radical."
I believe the media refers to people like this as "passionate". It doesn't apply to everyone. Your mileage may vary.
Rather than fighting words, could a court construe the statement at issue as a true threat?
They could. But if the facts are even vaguely similar to what is presented above, they would be wildly wrong to do so, especially since she was acquitted of the more serious charges of inciting a riot - you know, any of the things that would have followed through on the threat.
HOW COULD SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN IN AMERICA!!!???!
HOW COULD SOME LIKE THIS HAPPEN TO ME! IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN TO THEM!
I understand how being in custody puts a significant amount of stress on her as a pregnant woman, but isn't going to protests and screaming also not the ideal environment for a pregnant woman?
In South Carolina, What You Say During Protests Could Land You in Jail
Also, this is a silly headline. Um, yes, yes it can land you in jail, depending on what you say during protests. That much has been made ABUNDANTLY clear to us.
In Washington DC, Who You Support During Protests Could Land You in Jail...
Without charges...
Indefinitely...
Based
It's a shame we don't have a libertarian publication that might cover that.
You'd think that, by analogy with Tuberville v Savage (one of the few cases I remembered from Criminal Law undergrad), such words were not themselves unlawful. And 4 years is grossly disproportionate.
What you will never read on Reason, propaganda machine for the left.
HUGE First Amendment Win For Texas, Ken Paxton and All Americansx
Today in Federal Court, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the American people scored a huge victory regarding censorship and banning of individuals based on their viewpoint.
The case before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was regarding House Bill 20, which “generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring people based on the viewpoint of its speaker.” Judge Andrew S. Oldham opined that while “the platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time under any circumstances,”…”today, we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
“The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards — speech they otherwise would not host — and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would.”
This is a major victory in an ongoing battle over censorship and protections afforded to these tech oligarchs via Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The lopsided bill offers liability protections for the “providers” but no reciprocation to the People to ensure that they aren’t discriminated against based on personal ideologies, despite the bill stating that “the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”