cerealmarketer

It's the 'fighting words' doctrine. If someone uses fighting words directly to the face of someone, that has been construed as a disturbance of the peace in past cases (because it would be reasonable for the victim to retaliate with force). Thus the 'disorderly conduct' charge.

Dates back to the 40s with the Supreme Court - with nuances since in various court cases that have upheld racial slurs as fighting words. So it's not a recent development - but some folks are more aware of it over time. The key is using them directly at an individual in person. And then having witnesses to back it up.

https://www.cato.org/blog/fighting-words-free-speech

Still not clear to whether the passenger didn't commit trespassing - but that doesn't come into play for the agent's charge.

cur

because it was probably a ground loaded flight and there was no reason to freak out and call 911 just because a pax went behind the wing.

exwannabe

That doctrine really looks like a stretch here.

It has to be language intended to incite violence.

If an airport worker sees a pax walking around on the tarmac where they should not, it would be proper to yell at them "get back here". If instead they yelled "get back here you friggen idiot" it carries the same context. And replacing the ending with any other term, racists or not, does not change the context.

If the pax was walking back, and the agent stepped in their face and said "you are one stupid monkey", now I agree that could fall under the doctrine.

fastflyer

Interesting. The linked article points to a trendline that hate speech may become protected in future Supreme Court decisions, even when directed as a personal insult to someone, aka "fighting words."

With identity now so politicized, the UA employee might argue that racial hate speech is in fact protected political speech. I doubt this would even get beyond the local courts, but it could be an interesting case. This legal argument would also require concession that "monkey" when directed as a personal insult, would represent speech containing identity hatred. So if the legal argument fails, the gate agent would have admitted guilt to the disorderly conduct charge.

cerealmarketer

Sounds like the slurs witnessed were exchanged inside the terminal - after being called in from the tarmac. But there may have also been a podium between the agent and passenger. Does that make a case for no reasonable chance of violence?

I'll leave it to the many attorneys here to provide a professional view.

findark

Lawyers have that one covered, so not quite.