New Jersey Woman Triggers Free Speech Case With Profane Anti-Biden Signage

I have previously lamented that we appear to be a nation addicted to rage. There is no greater example than Andrea Dick, a Trump supporter who has adorned her yard in Roselle, Park New Jersey with profane attacks on President Joe Biden. The signage led to a complaint and ultimately a ruling by Judge Gary A. Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court that she must remove the offending signs. One of the burdens of being a free speech advocate is that you often must defend the speech of people with whom you disagree, even despise. This is one such case. Dick’s signage is juvenile and highly offensive. However, it is also free speech. Judge Bundy is entirely right in his expression of disgust but, in my view, entirely wrong in his analysis of the First Amendment.

Dick’s offensive signs (which can be seen here) include some comparably mild statements like “Don’t Blame Me/I Voted for Trump.” However, three include displays of the middle finger or simply “F**k Biden.” The signs were purchased by Dick, 54, from commercial dealers. Her lawyer, Michael Campagna, insists that the f-word no longer has a sexual connotation and is simply a common colloquialism. Indeed, anyone driving in New York or New Jersey can hear it used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and even a preposition.

The town’s mayor, Joseph Signorello III, called in a code enforcement officer who cited Patricia Dilascio (Dick’s mother who actually owns the house) for violating a Roselle Park ordinance prohibiting the display or exhibition of obscene material within the borough.

Bundy then gave the owner of property, Ms. Dilascio, a week to remove three of the 10 signs displayed on the property or face fines of $250 a day.

It does not help that Signorello is a Democrat and Roselle Park voted overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020. Yet, Signorello insists “This is not about politics in any way. It’s about decency.” No, it is about free speech.

Free speech is not protected because it is popular or correct. We do not need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. Profanity has long been a part of political discourse in the United States and other countries. Indeed, it has been found in some of the oldest graffiti in places like ancient Rome.

Judge Bundy noted that “There are alternative methods for the defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the United States.” Stressing that there is a nearby school, Bundy found that the language “exposes elementary-age children to that word, every day, as they pass by the residence.” He added that “Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right” and “the case is not a case about politics. It is a case, pure and simple, about language. This ordinance does not restrict political speech.”

It is hard to square that ruling basic principles of free speech.  After all, all speech cases are “about language” to some extent. Speech can be not just profane, but political and therefore protected. What Bundy is suggesting is that the state can regulate how you express opposition to politicians or the government. That makes this very much “about politics.”

In 1971, the Supreme Court handed down Cohen v. California in which it overturned the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket declaring “F**k the Draft” in a California courthouse.  Justice John Harlan wrote that “…while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric“.

The Court has repeatedly ruled that the use of this word and similar profanity is protected speech, not conduct subject to government action. Indeed, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. in favor of the free speech rights of a cheerleaders who swore a blue streak, including dropping the f-bomb, after being rejected for the varsity team. It seems a tad odd that Dick cannot use this word near a school, but one of the students can do a virtual profane cheer with the same word and gestures.

The ruling is reminiscent of the ruling of another judge in Pennsylvania in a case where a Muslim man attacked an atheist who wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume on Halloween. The judge dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and chastised the atheist instead, declaring such a costume falls “way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights.” Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin added “It’s unfortunate that some people use the 1st Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended.”

He clearly is not familiar with some of our forefathers. Thomas Paine could not go into a pub without starting a ruckus, if not a full-fledge riot. And that was often among people who agreed with him.

The ordinance in this case was clearly based on past cases on pornography like Miller v. California rather than political speech cases. It prohibits “appeals to the prurient interest” that “depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined.” It must also  and “lack[] serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The most obvious objection in this case is that this does have “political value” even if most of us find it offensive. Indeed, what is most chilling is the application of what was a pornography test to political speech.

The Miller standard has long been criticized by legal scholars, including myself, as hopelessly and dangerously vague. The Court has been mocked for its ham-handed efforts to define pornography. In earlier cases like Jacobellis v. Ohio, the Court could not even agree on a clear reason why a porn film was not so obscene as to allow prosecution. Instead, in one of the most ridiculous statements ever penned by a member of the Court, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his concurrence that “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

The First Amendment could not long survive if the same absurd approach was taken to political speech. Yet, that is what Judge Bundy effectively did. He did not try to define protected political speech but simply declared that this is not it.

Dick is the price we pay for free speech. Fortunately, free speech allows us to respond to bad speech with better speech. Of course, that does not make this easier for parents who must deal with their children who walk past Dick’s yard. However, they may want to start by teaching them not about the meaning of her speech but the meaning of free speech under our Constitution.

106 thoughts on “New Jersey Woman Triggers Free Speech Case With Profane Anti-Biden Signage”

  1. In the end, this is a local decision.
    If you live there and dont like it. change the law. Support those running for office that support your view. Change the law. If I were a judge that’s how I would rule. Local people living under local rule, is the essence of a free people.

  2. She probably would have been a hero if the signage were directed at Trump. I agree with your analysis of the situation Prof. Turley.

    1. “13 percent of Americans say that vampires definitely or probably exist. There are some slight partisan differences when it comes to a belief in supernatural entities. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe supernatural entities of all kinds, particularly demons.”

      The cosmos is made up of protons, neutrons and morons.

      1. Hot air. No facts attached. He doesn’t understand any of the cultures where the supernatural is very much apart of them whether they be minority or majority.

    2. Rasmussen polling is not accurate, as has been proven repeatedly. They target pro-Trump respondents.

  3. James says: “Someone posted recently that it seems human decency may very well be dead, and I hope very much that that is not the case. This is the job of parents, not institutions, not of the government.”

    “You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught” lyrics:

    “You’ve got to be taught
    To hate
    And fear
    You’ve got to be taught
    From year
    To year
    Its got to
    Be drummed in your dear little ear
    You’ve got to
    Be carefully
    Taught
    You’ve got to be taught
    To be
    Afraid
    Of people
    Who’s eyes are oddly made
    And people who’s skin is a different shade
    You’ve got to
    Be carefuly
    Taught
    You’ve got to be taught
    Before it’s too late
    Before you are six
    Or seven
    Or eight
    To hate all the people
    Your relatives hate
    You’ve got to
    Be carefully taught
    You’ve got to
    Be carefully taught….”

    1. As much as I support free speech this woman wasted her right. She needed to post the why.

  4. Eb: “Newsflash: Turley is a shill for Fox News.”

    A shill is “a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, politics, sports, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest.”

    The latter half of that definition best describes Turley’s shilling. We notice that he NEVER endorses Fox News nor EVER praises his Fox colleagues. Instead, he goes out of his way to discredit Fox’s cable competitors.

    By the way, I wonder if Turley will be requested by the upcoming 1/6 commission to provide his Free Speech analysis of Trump’s lies at the 1/6 rally. If he agrees to appear, however, he may be asked- under oath- what he thinks of the fact that Fox News championed the Big Lie which was instrumental in fomenting the hate which created the conditions to fuel the rage in storming the Capitol.

    1. Hadn’t thought of him being called by the commission, but it makes sense since he’s become such the mouthpiece for ‘free speech’. The under oath Turley would be must see tv, let’s just say that, Jeff!

      eb

      1. Who better to deny the Big Lie? While Turley has thrown shade at the legal merits of Trump’s election lawsuits, he has never mentioned the Big Lie as such, nor ever acknowledged Fox’s role in perpetuating it. He might even be called as a material witness if the Commission wants to explore Fox’s role in mainstreaming this election falsehood. After all, he had a hand in the normalizing the Big Lie by NOT unmistakably disabusing Trumpists of their wrong-headed belief that the election was positively stolen. Turley never fails to point out that Trump told the demonstrators to walk peacefully to the Capitol. So why did Turley call Trump’s speech “reckless”?
        I imagine this question from Liz Cheney:

        “Professor, I just have one more question. If Trump gave his die-hard followers an order that they were to walk to the Capitol peacefully, and his orders are always followed, then why was his speech reckless? Why was the Capitol in any danger?”

        1. Yes! The walk away question. Turley’s practicing his harrumph and eye roll in the mirror in anticipation, no doubt.

          eb

  5. Trump’s PAC Not Contributing To Bogus State Recounts

    Former president Donald Trump’s political PAC raised roughly $75 million in the first half of this year as he trumpeted the false notion that the 2020 election was stolen from him, but the group has not devoted funds to help finance the ongoing ballot review in Arizona or to push for similar endeavors in other states, according to people familiar with the finances.

    Instead, the Save America leadership PAC — which has few limits on how it can spend its money — has paid for some of the former president’s travel, legal costs and staff, along with other expenses, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of the anonymity to describe the group’s inner workings. The PAC has held onto much of its cash.

    Even as he assiduously tracks attempts by his allies to cast doubt on the integrity of last year’s election, Trump has been uninterested in personally bankrolling the efforts, relying on an array of other entities and supporters to fund the endeavors, they said.

    Edited from:

    Trump’s PAC collected $75 million this year, but so far the group has not put money into pushing for the 2020 ballot reviews he touts

    Today’s Washington Post
    ……………………………………………………………….

    The article goes on to say that Trump’s PAC is saving its funds to sponsor Trump toadies in next year’s midterms.

Leave a Reply