Cerame v. Lamont
Citations
- 346 Conn. 422
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 53-37), ''[a]ny person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misde- meanor.'' The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendants, the governor of the state of Connecticut and the chief state's attorney, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff specifically sought to permanently enjoin the enforcement of § 53-37 on the ground that it violates his constitutional right to free speech. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he engages in certain speech that falls within the scope of the statute, including ridiculing others on the basis of their race, religion, creed, color, nationality, or denomination in order to express comradery and in the course of play with his closest friends and sometimes does so in open forums or on the Internet. He also alleged that he ridicules or holds up to contempt American nationals or persons of Italian heritage in his personal life, criticizes and ridicules Scientology and religious practices he considers harmful to society, sometimes uses racial slurs or impolite terms for individuals of certain religious denominations in his work as a free speech advocate, and republishes comedic material ridiculing others on the basis of their race, religion, creed, color, nationality, or denomina- tion. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to allege an injury in fact, that is, that he faces a credible threat of prosecution under § 53-37. Thereafter, the District Court, pursuant to statute (§ 51-199b (d)), certified to this court the question of whether the speech alleged in the plaintiff's complaint comes within the scope of the phrase ''by h
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.