Jurist to Rule on Legality of Insults Taboo : 2 Cases Focus Attention on Law Protecting Teachers

In two separate cases that have cast attention on a little-known state law, Ventura County prosecutors are alleging that a Simi Valley mother and a Moorpark man have criminally insulted teachers.

But a county public defender is countering that the law is vague and unconstitutionally strips away free speech rights by making teachers a protected class.

In response, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles R. McGrath has stayed proceedings in the two cases until he rules on the law’s constitutionality. A hearing is scheduled for Friday.

The law, adopted in 1943, holds that a parent or other person who insults or abuses a teacher in the presence of school personnel or students on or next to school grounds is guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalty is a $100 to $1,000 fine.

“It’s a fairly common-sense statute,” said Steven C. Phillips, a deputy district attorney. “It’s a compelling state interest to maintain an environment conducive to learning. Teachers have a tough enough job maintaining control.”

In both cases, school officials who purportedly heard the insults reported them to police, starting legal fights that, both sides say, upon appeal may uphold or strike down the law.

Accused of Hurling Taunts

In the first incident, Ronald Lee Chunn, 20, of Moorpark directed lewd taunts at two officials of Moorpark Memorial High School, according to a report by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department.

As he was leaving a bonfire pep rally at the school Nov. 6, Chunn swore at school Principal Mary Quirk and Michael R. Slater, superintendent of the Moorpark Unified School District, the report says.

Chunn was arrested the next day and released on $500 bail.

In the second case, Nancy K. Wingrove, 34, of Simi Valley shouted at an assistant principal who reported a bike theft implicating Wingrove’s son, then an eighth-grader at Hillside Junior High School, according to Simi Valley police.

Wingrove confronted Assistant Principal Ron Lucio in his office Dec. 10, yelling: “I will sue you. I will get you, sucker,” according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael D. Schwartz.

She was released on her own recognizance after a court hearing.

J. Michael Neary, the deputy public defender representing Chunn and Wingrove, said the law creates an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.

“They have carved out teachers as some kind of protected class. In essence, it means you can’t go down to a school and stand up for a kid,” he argued.

As an example of the law’s workings, Neary contended, two parents walking along school property who are verbally assailing their children’s teacher would be considered guilty if they were overheard by a school staff member.

The law also lacks specificity by failing to explain who decides what is insulting and whether administrators are considered teachers, Neary said.

Prosecutors in both cases, however, argue that the law does not restrain speech generally but regulates the time, place and manner for criticizing teachers.

Such refinements on the right to free speech, they say, are consistent with past rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that, for example, place falsely yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater outside First Amendment protections.

“It limits the speech only on school grounds doing school business,” Phillips said. “It doesn’t make it illegal to insult teachers.”

Both sides agree the law is rarely used and has not been appealed to higher courts.

“It was usually used when some parent got too wild and started insulting everyone,” said Roger Segure, with the United Teachers of Los Angeles.

“It hasn’t been used much in recent years because judges feel it’s too vague. Over the years, parents have been regarded as having the right to interfere in school matters,” he said.