Yesterday's Buffalo News reports:
It didn't take long for the city worker accused of putting a "whites only" sign on a public works drinking fountain to realize it was a really bad idea....
[James] Curtis, 52, of 80th Street, a 26-year employee in the Public Works Department, told police before his arrest last Friday that he took down the sign after he realized he might get in trouble.
By that time, an African-American co-worker had photographed it with his cell phone.
Curtis said he confessed last week to posting the sign because his conscience got the better of him, although not before he lied about his involvement when first confronted by Detective Frank Coney.
"I lied because I was scared," Curtis said in court papers reviewed by The Buffalo News after the motor equipment operator's arraignment Tuesday in City Court.
Last Friday, Curtis told Coney and David Kinney, the city's director of public works and parks, that the sign was a joke.
"It wasn't racial," he said. "I didn't do it to be mean, and it's been eating me up." ...
He told police he had hand-written the sign, which read "whites only drinking fountain" in upper and lower case letters, on the back of a time card....
Curtis pleaded not guilty to second-degree aggravated harassment, which normally is a misdemeanor.
But city police, who filed the charge Friday, categorized it as a racially motivated hate crime, which bumps up the charge to a Class E felony....
The relevant statute seems to be N.Y. Penal Law ยง 240.30, which reads in relevant part, "A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she: ... communicates with a person ... in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm." I take it that the theory here is that the sign was intended to harass, annoy, or alarm, and conveyed in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.
The statute, though, seems to be unconstitutionally overbroad, and a violation of the First Amendment, at least if it's interpreted broadly enough to cover speech such as this. Curtis could surely be fired for putting up the sign, even if it's a joke — the sign clearly interferes with the effective functioning of the workplace. Government employees generally aren't entitled to post material on government property that make government facilities unpleasant for coworkers, or members of the public. But I don't think it's constitutional to criminally punish someone for such a posting, especially under such a broad content-based statute, which isn't limited to government employees or government property.
In other words, while perhaps facially unconstitutional, it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional as applied, so the facts of the case described don't seem to add a whole lot to the legal analysis.
You've got to be kidding me.
imo, if somebody is being annoying you tell them to knock it off. if they continue, then you get a court order prohibiting them from doing so. that gets a judge into the process. THEN, it should be criminal. before that, it's just a person being a jerk.
the law says this:
"A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she: ... communicates with a person ... in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm."
so, if a person has the intent to annoy a person he doesn't like, and stands outside the gym they both work out at , and when the guy exits the gym he says "you're a fat jerk" 3 times in a row, that would seem to meet the criteria of this statute. that's a CRIME!>?!?!?!?!
ridiculous.
the law should apply to "true threats". being a jerk and saying annoying things should NOT be criminal, nor imo is it constitutional to criminalize being a jerk.
i recall a case from college where some frat boys were sitting on their deck and as women rode by , they held up # signs (1-10 scale) rating them... now, is this obnoxious? yes. could the university discipline them? sure. should it be CRIMINAL? get real.
It is tough to handle this because we as the Police are being used investigate things that in the private sector would be looked at by some human resources flak.
He should be fired unless he targeted someone specific, in which case he should be prosecuted.
Just my .02
To some extent, this brings up the problem with "racially motivated hate crime" statutes - that by their very nature they are not content neutral, and are specifically designed to suppress certain speech (however odious).
If this is constitutional, then Jerry Falwell should have won his lawsuit against Hustler.
Really? You really think that non-whites would be afraid to drink at a fountain where someone had put up a hand-written "whites only drinking fountain" sign, because they'd be worried that someone might assault them, or have them arrested for violating the Jim Crow law in effect in Buffalo freaking New York?
That aside, the city (or the county or whoever the prosecuting agency) is stupid to prosecute this as a felony. Had it been charged as a misdemeanor, the malefactor would have likely pled guilty thinking to himself, "Yeah, I did it and I was stupid to do it."
Now, as a felony, there will be lawyers involved--and unless the case quickly pleads out at the misdemeanor level, the city will have egg on its face, and perhaps be defending itself in a civil suit brought by the employee who made the idiotic sign.
it's being annoying with speech. big deal.
DARN! I raised an adolescent son in California for all those years (until this week, when we shipped him off to college in Ohio) without law enforcement intervention, when I coulda had him locked up every time he smarted off at me, if only we'd lived in New York?!? What was I thinking?
Seriously, although I've seen people charged under statutes prohibiting "annoying", I've never read a case or seen a statute that clearly defined the term. It's a catch-all so vague that it's applied to everything from looking at someone cross-eyed to flag waving.
Perhaps a condign punishment, in lieu of firing, would be for him to have to eat the sign.
See, he's a low level blue collar employee, so he'll probably take some kind of hit for his stupid prank. But if the mayor or a member of the city council did the same thing, there'd be a lot of arm-waving and bluster, talking heads on the news would opine, then things would settle down and nothing would ultimately happen to them. Because these days, the buck only stops with the little guy.
Writing "Whites Only" on a sign and putting on a water fountain doesn't happen by accident.
a) thats not the charge in this case
b) only the feds can prosecute a federal crime (even if the state arrests you for it)
c) that still doesn't get you around the first amendment
Curtis does something idiotic but after 26 years can probably retire anyway.
He faced a (very) marginally constitutional prosecution and may also be fired. Wrongful discharge?
Then he admits the act but pleads not guilty to a misdemeanor. Then the charge was boosted to a hate crime? Who saw that coming?
His African-American co-worker may also be a victim and collect from the city.
I think Global Warming may have affected the water from that drinking fountain.
Why is severance the best available option? Why would we not instead take at face value his contrition and note in his HR file that this has happened. With respect to those who are offended at the placement of the sign two questions arise: Is it real, did Jim Crow reach Buffalo, or, who is the jerk pulling my chain.
All of us (meaning me and many others) at times have thought we are witty to the point of tears, and only in retrospect realize others see us as just mean. The line of human foibles is long and didn't start with this guy.
After his community service or suspended sentence, he should be brought into the HR office and sign papers admitting his actions and hopefully get on with the rest of his life.
At the felony level, his attorney MIGHT convince him to plead out at the misdemeanor level simply because the attorney has a lot of cases and it disposes of the case quickly--even if he is relatively sure that he will prevail on appeal.
By the way this kind of conversation between defense counsel and clients happens all the time in criminal law: "I am pretty sure we will win, but the risk is a felony conviction if I am wrong. This way, the case is treated kind of like a traffic citation and we can get on with our lives. But it is up to you."