Posted on 05/13/2021 11:25:14 AM PDT by jimtorr
In a major but likely controversial victory for free speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the conviction of a retired Air Force colonel for using a racial epithet at the shoe store on the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia. Jules A. Bartow, who is white, was arrested after a bizarre and disgraceful exchange with an employee, including the use of the “n word” with the African American woman. The highly offensive and repugnant language of Bartow was denounced by the court, but the unanimous panel still reversed T.S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia on First Amendment grounds.
Free speech advocates must often defend those who are despised or language that is deeply offensive. The First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech or popular people. Such speech and such people rarely need protection. That means that we must resist attacks on free speech in cases where we find speech to be repugnant and repulsive. That is the case with retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jules A. Bartow.
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...
Among other things, it turns out that Bartow did not actually call anyone an offensive name, but used the term in a "what if I did" question.
The story is bizarre. Was he drunk or something?
Is it illegal to say the “N” word?
Sticks and stones
The whole point of ensuring free speech is to protect the speech of those you disagree with or find repulsive in their speech. Otherwise it’s meaningless.
It’s the old phrase, “I disagree with what you are saying, but I defend your right to say it.”
I dont try to call people names, but if I did in anger, its my right. And its their behavior, not my free speech, that is racist.
The left is about to explode. The N word is back and its constitutional.
It seems far worse than being ‘illegal’.
What about jungle bunny?
Controversial?!
How is this ruling, in any way, controversial?!
He didn’t attack anyone - he didn’t insult anyone. He was acting weird and that’s not a crime no matter how much you want to virtue signal your righteousness for not saying certain words or wearing a mask.
What statute did he violate? Are there now laws actually criminalizing speech?
convicted? For being racist? How did Byrd serve all those years in congress without being convicted then? (Rhetorical question)
It is not, because the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and free expression, and the US Constitution is the highest law in the land.
It may be ill advised to say the ‘N’ word, but it’s not illegal.
What Bartow did was not criminal, but this colonel is definitely in need of a mental health exam for his bizarre behavior. He is on active duty service and, as such, is subject to UCMJ. The military, not the civilian courts, should be reviewing this.
I don’t know if the Colonel is guilty of any actual crime, but reading the conversation as described in the column, he sounds like a real jackass. There is no reason for an US military officer to speak the way that he did to a civilian working in a PX. If he had a problem with her customer service, he should have talked to her supervisor.
I don’t know if the Colonel is guilty of any actual crime, but reading the conversation as described in the column, he sounds like a real jackass. There is no reason for an US military officer to speak the way that he did to a civilian working in a PX. If he had a problem with her customer service, he should have talked to her supervisor.
Sounds to me like the guy was just plain nuts. Somebody get him tested for Alzheimer’s…that’s what the behavior sounds like to me.
Correction. I see he is retired so UCMJ has no application to him.
Voltaire - French guy, Nov 21, 1694 - May 30, 1778 (age 83).
Dead honkey!
Bartow was charged under Virginia Code § 18.2-416, which reads in pertinent part:
“If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.