This interlocutory appeal presents a facial constitutional challenge to OCGA § 20-2-1182, which criminalizes upbraiding, insulting, or abusing a public school teacher, administrator, or bus driver in the presence of a pupil while on the premises of a public school or school bus. Appellant Michael Antonio West was arrested and charged under OCGA § 20-2-1182, and he thereafter filed a general demurrer, contending, among other things, that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Generally speaking, “[t]he First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (
To respect this
“breathing space” and avoid deterring expression that may tend toward the outer boundaries of what is protected, the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine permits courts to invalidate laws burdening protected expression on their face, without regard to whether their application might be constitutional in a particular case.
Scott v. State,
seeks to strike a balance between competing social costs. On the one hand, the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law deters people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, inhibiting the free exchange of ideas. On the other hand,invalidating a law that in some of its applications is perfectly constitutional — particularly a law directed at conduct so antisocial that it has been made criminal — has obvious harmful effects.
(Citations omitted.) Williams,
The statute at issue here involves school premises, officials, and students.
While it is true that rights protected by the First Amendment are not magically lost when one steps upon school property, “neither teachers, students, nor anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use all parts of a school building for unlimited expressive purposes.” Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education Members,538 F.2d 471 [,] 480 (2nd Cir. 1976). “Time, place and manner” regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted. But, in assessing the reasonableness of such regulations “we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State’s legitimate interest.” Grayned [v. City of Rockford,408 U. S. 104 , 116 (92 SCt 2294 , 33 LE2d 222) (1972)]. The test, as announced in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,393 U. S. 503 (89 SCt 733 , 21 LE2d 731) (1969) is whether a regulation is designed to restrict only that expression which “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” [Id.] at 513.
McCall v. State, 354 S2d 869, 871 (Fla. 1978). It is “evident beyond the need for elaboration” that government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children. Osborne v. Ohio,
With these principles in mind, we begin our analysis, applying a de novo standard of review to the judgment of the trial court. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt,
The first step any court must take “in any overbreadth analysis is to construe the statute in question.” Scott,
presume that the General Assembly meant what it said and said what it meant. To that end, we must afford the statutory text its “plain and ordinary meaning,” we must view the statutory text in the context in which it appears, and we must read the statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Deal v. Coleman,
OCGA §
Any parent, guardian, or person other than a student at the public school in question who has been advised that minor children are present and who continues to upbraid, insult, or abuse any public school teacher, public school administrator, or public school bus driver in the presence and hearing of a pupil while on the premises of any public school or public school bus may be ordered by any of the above-designated school personnel to leave the school premises or school bus, and upon failure to do so such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00.
(Emphasis supplied.) Id. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1966), to upbraid is to “criticize severely: find fault with” or to “reproach severely: scold vehemently,” id. at 2517; an insult is “to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt by word or action” or “a gross indignity offered to another either by word or act: an act or speech of insolence or contempt,” id. at 1173; and, abuse is defined as “to attack or injure with words: reproach coarsely; disparage” or “language that condemns or vilifies, usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily,” id. at 8. Thus, the plain language of OCGA § 20-2-1182 makes it a misdemeanor for any person not a student — after being advised that pupils are present and continuing to speak critically, reproachfully, indignantly, or disparagingly toward any public school teacher, administrator, or bus driver in the presence and hearing of a pupil — to remain on the school premises or bus after being ordered to leave by a school official.
While we may be able to conceive of a statement that constitutes an “upbraid, insult, or abuse” that could be classified as “fighting words” and thus not subject to First Amendment protections, see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
Further, though ostensibly seeking to prevent disruptions to education or school activities, the statute neither ties the prohibited expression to the disruption of normal school activities nor limits the prohibitions to specific, fixed times, such as when school is in session. McCall, 354 S2d at 872. Also concerning, the statute does not proscribe all speech that might be boisterous or disruptive; instead, OCGA § 20-2-1182 prohibits only that speech directed at public school officials which may be perceived as negative or unfavorable. “It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
Although this criminal statute may have a legitimate application, it also makes unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. See City of Houston v. Hill,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
West’s general demurrer also cited to the free speech clause found in Georgia’s Constitution. See Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. V.
The General Assembly has enacted other laws that proscribe disruptive conduct on school grounds that are content neutral. See, e.g., OCGA § 20-2-1181.
In striking down a similar provision, a court of appeals in California recognized that the statute could be triggered by comments about a teacher’s dress or perceived teaching abilities. Ketchens,