Court Opinion

ID: 9615657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:39:25.967664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:50.005575
License: Public Domain

HEARN, C.J.:
Because I disagree with the majority that the evidence supports the finding that the statements uttered by Sarratt constitute fighting words, I respectfully dissent.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the power of states to punish fighting words under carefully drawn statutes which do not infringe upon protected forms of speech. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 528, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 1107, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). The Court defines fighting words as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). The majority correctly recognizes that the vulgarity or offensiveness of words is not by itself sufficient to classify them as fighting words. Wilson, 405 U.S. at 527, 92 S.Ct. at 1108. However, the majority holds the language used by Sarratt constituted fighting words finding that an ordinary person would be incited to violence in light of the comments made by Sarratt, the tone in which they were spoken, and the fact that vulgarities were directed at Mrs. Hembree. I believe the majority incorrectly reaches this conclusion because there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Sarratt’s com*146ments had any effect on the Hembrees other than to offend them. Absent evidence that Sarratt’s statements tended to cause the Hembrees to react violently, his words do not fall within the narrowly tailored exception to protected speech set forth in Chaplinsky.
Cases interpreting Chaplinsky have made it clear that states may only prohibit speech that has “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” Wilson, 405 U.S. at 524, 92 S.Ct. at 1107 (emphasis added). See also Diehl v. State, 294 Md. 466, 474-75, 451 A.2d 115, 120 (1982) (stating fighting words are those that “would produce an uncontrollable impulse to violence ... ”). “In effect, ‘fighting’ words have been recognized as having some social value and are punishable now not on a ‘per se’ basis, but only when there is a likelihood of imminent disturbance.” Downs v. State, 278 Md. 610, 615, 366 A.2d 41, 44 (1976) (citations omitted). The mere use of profane or unpopular language is not enough. “Language likely to offend the sensibility of some listeners is now fairly commonplace in many social gatherings as well as in public performances.” Eaton v. City of Tusla, 415 U.S. 697, 700, 94 S.Ct. 1228, 1231, 39 L.Ed.2d 693 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring). This is the very nature of free speech in our society. The Supreme Court of Minnesota recognized the inherent difficulty in determining the relative offensiveness of any particular expression. The court stated,
To begin with, curses, oaths, expletives, ... and the whole vocabulary of insults are not intended or susceptible of literal interpretation. They are expressions of annoyance and hostility — nothing more. To attach greater significance to them is stupid, ignorant, or naive. Their significance is emotional, and it is not merely immeasurable but variable.
City of Saint Paul v. Morris, 258 Minn. 467, 481, 104 N.W.2d 902, 910 (1960). The court further noted that the emotional quality of words varies from time to time, from region to region, and as between social and cultural groups. Id.
Before one may be punished for spoken words, there must be evidence that the abusive utterance itself tended to incite an immediate breach of the peace. See Downs, 278 Md. at 618, 366 A.2d at 46 (“And, even if someone were offended by *147[the abusive statement], there was no evidence that any person was so aroused as to respond in a violent manner.”). The State may not assume that provocative expressions will incite such violence. Rather, the State must carefully consider the surrounding circumstances to determine “whether the expression ‘is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’ ” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2542, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (refusing to accept the State’s argument that it need only demonstrate a potential for breach of the peace). Certainly, words may convey anger and frustration and yet not rise to a level such as to provoke a violent reaction from the listener. Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 135, 94 S.Ct. 970, 973, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring). It is not enough that the words merely arouse anger or resentment. See Skelton v. City of Birmingham, 342 So.2d 933, 937 (Ala.Crim.App.1976).
Here, the record shows only that a verbal exchange occurred between the parties during which profanity was used. Upon finding Sarratt guilty, the magistrate stated, “On the charge of public disorderly conduct the way I understand the law ... is that it was loud and boisterous, there was cursing and all this____” The magistrate makes no finding that there was an imminent risk of violence resulting from Sarratt’s statements nor does the record suggest that any party involved was incited to react violently. Moreover, the officer who arrested Sarratt did so based only on statements given to him by the Hembrees, and he did not personally observe the altercation. Accordingly, it is impossible for the officer to have assessed whether the comments made by Sarratt, and the circumstances under which they were made, were so abusive towards the Hembrees that an immediate violent reaction was imminent. See State v. James, 111 N.M. 473, 475, 806 P.2d 1063, 1065 (N.M.Ct.App.1990) (considering the fact that the arresting officer felt it necessary to step between the arguing parties as evidence that a fight was likely to ensue).
While this court may find it deplorable that Sarratt directed abusive language towards Mr. Hembree and his mother, we must not predicate a conviction for such conduct on our view of poor taste. Instead, the evidence must show that there was *148an imminent risk of violent reaction to Sarratt’s language. In the absence of such evidence, Sarratt’s expressions, although profane in nature, are entitled to the protection granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Accordingly, I would affirm the circuit court’s order reversing Sarratt’s conviction.