A Violation Of Free Speech?

[seer]

How is this not a violation of the freedom of speech?

Two University of Connecticut student have been arrested and charged with hate crimes after being recorded walking outside student apartments saying racial slurs, according to The Washington Post.

Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj, both identified as 21-year-old white students by police, were charged with the misdemeanor of ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race for violating a state hate crime statute.

The students also face potential discipline from the school, even possible expulsion, for violating the student code of conduct, UConn President Thomas C. Katsouleas said in a statement.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/colleg...ent-apartments

[NorrinRadd]

Obviously it is a severe infringement on Constitutional guarantees.

[Terraceth]

Hrm. It's always possible there's more to this story or the law than is reported, but I do have difficulty seeing how the law (found here: "Any 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 misdemeanor") is constitutional unless there's a meaning of "by his advertisement" that I'm unaware of. If not for that phrase it seems blatantly unconstitutional, but that extra restriction, depending on what it means (I have no idea), could be the necessary extra requirement to make the law constitutional. Anyone more familiar with law phrasings know what "by his advertisement" means?

[seer]

Hrm. It's always possible there's more to this story or the law than is reported, but I do have difficulty seeing how the law (found here: "Any 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 misdemeanor") is constitutional unless there's a meaning of "by his advertisement" that I'm unaware of. If not for that phrase it seems blatantly unconstitutional, but that extra restriction, depending on what it means (I have no idea), could be the necessary extra requirement to make the law constitutional. Anyone more familiar with law phrasings know what "by his advertisement" means?

This is my state and I have no idea what that means, but how could "by his advertisement" be defined, in any sense, to be constitutional? From what the local papers said these knuckleheads were just using racial slurs - no confrontations or threats.

[seer]

We are in trouble...

Poll: Majority of Americans Want First Amendment Rewritten

51 percent of Millennials want fines or jail time for 'hate speech'

https://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-m...ent-rewritten/