Court asked to reconsider ‘goat face’ case

Collins put up 'wanted poster’ at local post office

The attorney for a Three Springs-area man will ask that an expanded panel of Pennsylvania Superior Court judges reconsider last week's decision by the court that found his client guilty of harassment for attempting to distribute a "wanted poster" and letters describing a neighbor as having a "goat face" and other unattractive amenities.

According to John William Collins, 77, the neighbor was "spreading lies" about him and he retaliated by placing a "wanted poster" in the Three Springs post office urging the capture and caging of the neighbor "for trying to impersonate a human being."

Referring to a photo of the neighbor, the poster stated, "It's got a goat face and smells like a pig."

Collins also attempted to mail letters and distribute flyers containing the same message and to allegedly point out the fact the neighbor was driving without a license and had a conviction for driving under the influence -- although the communications did not mention that.

A Superior Court panel, by a 2-1 margin, upheld Collins' conviction on two counts of harassment and the sentence that includes 15 days behind bars and a $600 fine imposed by Huntingdon County Court Judge George N. Zanic.

The issue, raised by Collins' attorney, Christopher B. Wencker of Huntingdon, focuses on the First Amendment right of free speech.

Wencker, on behalf of Collins, argued before the Superior Court that Collins was being unfairly punished for exercising his free speech rights.

Superior Court Judges Jack A. Panella and James G. Colins, however, disagreed and upheld the guilty verdicts.

While Judge Deborah A. Kunselman did not disagree that Collins had violated Pennsylvania's harassment laws by attempting to distribute his communications, which were intercepted by post office personnel, she recommended his convictions and sentence be vacated and a judgment of acquittal issued.

She wrote that Zanic had correctly interpreted Pennsylvania's harassment statute but emphasized, "The First Amendment preempts that state law and bars Mr. Collins' prosecution and conviction on these facts."

Both the majority judges and Kunselman agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court has over the years ruled that free speech is not absolute.

The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, criminal libel or the "fighting words" that will ultimately lead to violence, both sides stated.

Judges Colins and Panella however ruled Collins' communications were an attempt to shame and provoke his neighbor and "to direct the ire of the public on him based upon his status as an offender."

"Viewed in its totality, we conclude that Collin's public dissemination of the poster and letters falls outside the bounds of constitutionally protected speech," according to the majority.

The communications were intended to be insulting by attacking the neighbor's appearance, his parentage and his character, they concluded.

Kunselman answered, noting "If the majority's novel, amorphous 'shame or provoke' exception is added to the corpus of constitutional law, it will overshadow and impede an important purpose of this rule -- to facilitate the free flow of ideas in society."

She stated, "The First Amendment deliberately protects speech that some might find offensive. Thus, speech that might shame or provoke people falls under this protection."

She stated, "speech is powerful and can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and, as it did here, inflict great pain."

"Even still, the (Supreme Court in a 2011 case) recognized it could not 'react to that pain by punishing the speaker,'" stated Kunselman.

Wencker, after consulting with his client following the release of the opinion, said Monday he will ask for a larger panel of the Superior Court, possibly as many as nine judges, to review the Collins case.

If the larger "en banc" panel rules against Collins, Wencker at that point can ask for further review by the state Supreme Court.