New Jersey Bill Would Outlaw Hurt Feelings

The New Jersey State House Building

​A bill protecting reproductive and transgender healthcare services has become snagged in controversy in the New Jersey Assembly. But it is not the underlying philosophy of the bill that is generating controversy in this socially liberal blue state.

The problem is a clause in the bill that would criminalize, as “interference” with gender-affirming healthcare, speech that “would cause a reasonable person to suffer: (a) damage to the victim’s business or personal reputation; (b) financial harm; or (c) pain and suffering mental anguish or emotional harm.”

Really? You’re going to try to call out the police to impose polite speech in New Jersey?

The Garden State, after all, is the birthplace of Chelsea Handler and Joe Piscopo. It is where the irreverent Bostonian Bill Burr got his start in the business of being insultingly funny. Across the Hudson River lies the home of George Carlin, Don Rickles, and Andrew Dice Clay.
Good luck with that!

New Jersey Attorney CJ Griffin, who calls herself “an LGBT person,” told Dana DiFilippo of The New Jersey Monitor that while she applauds the intent of the bill, “you can’t unconstitutionally punish speech you don’t like … I get that lawmakers have constituents that are pushing very hard for this. But their biggest constituent needs to be the Constitution.”

The New Jersey Press Association also issued a statement urging legislators to remove this clause of the bill.

“Language around the vague term ‘reasonable person’ enables broad claims to ostensibly protect reputations or hurt feelings,” an association spokesman explained.

“For example, contrary to what the Constitution requires, the expansive language means a reporter could be civilly or criminally liable for publishing an article about the troubling practices of a reproductive healthcare services provider, even if the reporting was well-documented and fully accurate. A provider could simply assert his or her reputation or emotions were harmed by that truthful reporting.”

The slowdown of a bill that appeared to be fast-tracked indicates that second thoughts are taking place among the bill’s supporters about that clause. We would not be surprised to see the bill return with the speech-regulation clause removed.

This episode remains, however, a sobering reminder of how many people in positions of responsibility are still somehow able to graduate from high school, college, even law school, and not understand how the First Amendment operates.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS