The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Conviction for Use "of Racially Charged Language" to Police Officer
From Montmouth County (N.J.) Superior Court Judge Michael Guadagno's opinion in State v. Metcalfe, decided in Oct. 2024 but just affirmed earlier this month by the New Jersey intermediate appellate court. Neither court discussed whether the speech fits within an existing First Amendment exception, such as for "fighting words" (face-to-face personal insults that are likely to cause a fight).
Asbury Park Police Officer Ahmed H. Lawson testified that … he was on foot patrol … when he observed defendant talking with a security guard, Simon, who had just escorted defendant out of the [Capitoline Restaurant]. Police Officer Joseph Swansinger was standing next to Simon [by a crowd of people waiting to enter]. When Lawson stopped to talk with Swansinger, Simon was explaining to defendant why he could not be readmitted to the Capitoline. During this conversation, defendant turned to Lawson and said he felt sorry for him because he was compromising his integrity by listening to a white police officer (Swansinger is white; Lawson and defendant are black)[:]
{Brother I'm so sorry. I am so sorry that you have to deal with this shit. Here, here in this fucking County. I'm so sorry. Cause you know what, it's not even your fault. You literally even have to deal with his ass (pointing to Swansinger). This for you to get a fucking raise or anything like that too. It fucking makes no sense either. But you know what? I just want to let you know I apologize to you. You don't have to apologize to him. You don't have to apologize to nobody out here. It sucks though. For you to even speak up for that right because of this white motherfucker right here.}
Lawson testified that defendant had slurred speech and was "clearly intoxicated." He noticed that defendant's actions were drawing the attention of some of the people in the area because of what defendant was saying. As a result, Lawson told defendant he was being disorderly and asked him to leave. Defendant began to leave and walked across the street but came back and began to address Lawson in an "obnoxious" and "belligerent" fashion, calling him a "house nigger." {"You know what we call you back in my home? The House Nigger. Want to know why? Because whatever he does (pointing at Swansinger) it don't matter."}
Lawson again told defendant he was being disorderly and asked him to leave. Lawson testified that it was not his intention to arrest defendant, but when he refused to leave, defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct. On cross-examination, Lawson testified he was not upset when defendant called him a "house nigger." …
The relevant statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2, provides
[a.] Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he
- Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
- Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
[b.] Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present….
The trial court held that defendant was properly convicted under (a)(1), though its reasoning also seemed to discuss (a)(2) and (b):
[D]efendant's reckless and offensive conduct while he was clearly intoxicated rises to the level of tumultuous behavior…. [D]efendant clearly appeared intoxicated, acted in an agitated and aggressive manner, and engaged in a loud and profane-ridden tirade that lasted for minutes. Defendant's counsel argued that defendant was not yelling or waving his hands, but when defendant called Officer Swansinger a white motherfucker, he extended his arm and pointed his finger within inches of the officer, a far more aggressive action than hand-waiving…. Defendant's conduct was loud, profane and done in a threatening manner.
Additionally, this court concludes that defendant's use of racially charged language served "no legitimate purpose" and recklessly risked causing public inconvenience, public annoyance and public alarm by creating a physically dangerous condition.
It was also an intentional attempt by defendant to offend the sensibilities of both officers. The term "house nigger" is a pejorative term for a black person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from the historic period of legal slavery in the United States. It is a term that evinces "unbridled disrespect." …
The appellate court (in an opinion by Judges Arnold Natali and Kay Walcott-Henderson) affirmed "based upon Judge Guadagno's thorough and well-reasoned decision," and added:
Judge Guadagno … noted defendant's language was offensive and distasteful and rejected his contention that defendant's language did not rise to the level of tumultuous behavior. We are thus satisfied that the record in this case establishes that defendant caused public inconvenience and annoyance by his threatening conduct and that such behavior constitutes disorderly conduct under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a)(1).
Raymond S. Santiago, Melinda A. Harrigan, and Ryan Corbin represent the state.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Your thoughts, Professor Volokh? I don't get how this is constitutional. I don't think it can be dragged over the line to constitutionality with aggressive finger-wagging and loud language.
He provided this short thought.
And in other articles, Prof Volokh has asked whether and to what extent the 'fighting words' doctrine is still good law. If the insult has become so normalized that no reasonable person is actually stirred up enough to start a fight, can the doctrine even apply? The precedents that he's cited in the past are very confused.
So it looks to me like both sides just punted on the question and assumed the NJ law was constitutional - and the courts had to follow along in those legal strategy choices.
When looking at a defendant's criminal history, federal judges are supposed to ignore disorderly conduct convictions. Because they are for stuff like this.
Additionally, this court concludes that defendant's use of racially charged language served "no legitimate purpose"
There's that crack again, no legitimate purpose. I've related my tale many times of the revisiting of The Marketplace of Ideas a few years ago in popular media. How noble, to reinvigorate it! Yet this was at the height of the movement to coerce social media to ban harrassment, so something seemed suspicious. I hypothesized it was not a noble reminder for lovers of free speech, but an attempt to argue some speech, harrassment in that case, was worthless in that Marketplace, and therefore bannable.
Sure enough, two weeks later, Radiolab hosted a debate on the Marketplace, and one side's final conclusion was exactly that: harrassment was worthless, and therefore bannable under the First Amendment.
No cracks! We are men and women of science! Hypothesis with surprising prediction made. Checked out! QED
The benefit of the First Amendment is not that there's value in every last drooling from the mouth of some goober. It's in denying the powers that be, the nascent tyrants, one of the best clubs in their golf bag of tyranny.
And if Trump will have served any good, it will be as a warning to remind folks on the left of how quickly all these tyrant tools they seek, cracks in favor of censorship in this case, will not necessarily be wielded by themselves and their "good hearts".
Would that Europe, jailing people for speech, learn this. Half the countries are
breaking badcollapsing Nazi, and still the fools double down on this!Your efforts accelerate the ignition. Please stop. You have been warned.
Nazi-opa, Europa. Attempt no landing there.
Thing is, Europeans want this.
I agree the Court should have addressed the First Amendment issue. Understanding I have a somewhat broader idea of the scope of the fighting words exception than Professor Volokh may have, I think it’s plausible that the phrase “house nigger,” in the context of a confrontation, would be classifiable as fighting words.
I don't think it commonly rises to the level of fighting words, but certainly not in the context of a professionally trained police officer.
At least in Massachusetts, it is not possible to breach the peace of a police officer.
I read this as more inciting to riot -- the crowd, I presume Black, was getting upset...
Is the statute facially unconstitutional under the overbreadth doctrine?
I don't see why any words said to a police officer on duty should ever be considered "fighting words".
From the appellate desicion:
"Defendant argued that his remarks constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.
The [municipal court] judge, however, rejected defendant's contentions and found him guilty of disorderly conduct. The judge reasoned that even though the speech used was offensive, the case was not solely a First Amendment issue because it was defendant's overall behavior and conduct, including his confrontation with the officers and drawing public attention, all of which amounted to "tumultuous behavior" within the meaning of the statute."
Granted, if one thinks freedom of speech actually means freedom of expression, and all conduct and behavior are a means of expressing oneself, then the defendant should have prevailed.
If someone utters "fighting words" to me and I strike him, am I still liable for assault? If so, how is the doctrine logical? It claims that some words will trigger a physical response by a reasonable person, but then when I act as that reasonable person would, I get to go to jail?
Logically, "Them's fighting words!" is an after-the-fact defense for popping someone in the nose. It does not follow it is a rationalization for censorious government to preemptively censor "just in case".
It's disturbing how people just naturally assume government has the power using the flimsiest of reasons.
No cracks!
It looks like the actual offense here was Contempt of Cop.
The appellate court opinion opens with: "Defendant Michael L. Metcalfe appeals from an October 28, 2024 order finding him guilty of disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(a)(1), for engaging in drunk and disorderly conduct in Asbury Park on Saint Patrick's Day in 2023."
Seems like a stretch to headline the post "Conviction for Use "of Racially Charged Language" to Police Officer""
EV's title to this post is a bit misleading. He was NOT convicted for some "for Use "of Racially Charged Language" to Police Officer"
he was doing that yes. but the opinion makes clear his conviction isn't due to racially charged language (at least by itself) but the general disorderly conduct type behavior in the first parts of the statute.
"...The term "house nigger" is a pejorative term for a black person, used to compare someone to a house slave of a slave owner from the historic period of legal slavery in the United States. It is a term that evinces "unbridled disrespect." . . ."
"UNBRIDLED disrespect"? Aren't we talking then about a *horse* n****r, and not a house n****r? [Merry Christmas everyone! I'll be here all week!!!.]