A Massachusetts judge has ruled that a rubber duck protest in support of Karen Read, accused of murdering her boyfriend, is protected free speech.
At a Glance
- Criminal charges against Richard Schiffer Jr. were dismissed for placing rubber ducks and fake money around town
- The judge ruled Schiffer’s actions as protected political speech under the First Amendment
- Schiffer’s protest was in support of Karen Read, who faces second-degree murder charges
- The case highlights the legal protection of unconventional forms of protest
Judge Dismisses Charges in Rubber Duck Protest Case
In a ruling that underscores the broad protections of the First Amendment, a Massachusetts judge has dismissed criminal charges against Richard Schiffer Jr., who engaged in an unconventional protest in support of accused killer Karen Read (more below). Schiffer had placed yellow rubber ducks and counterfeit $100 bills around town as part of a symbolic gesture to raise awareness about Read’s case.
The judge’s decision to drop felony witness intimidation and criminal harassment charges against Schiffer highlights the court’s recognition of such acts as a lawful exercise of free speech, even when presented in a humorous and somewhat unorthodox manner. This ruling serves as a reminder that non-traditional expressions of protest can be both impactful and legally permissible when they do not cause significant disruption.
The Karen Read Case and Rubber Duck Symbolism
Karen Read faces second-degree murder charges in connection with the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe. Her case has garnered significant attention, with supporters like Schiffer arguing that she has been wrongly accused. The rubber duck protest was inspired by a defense lawyer’s argument using the phrase “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck,” which Schiffer creatively incorporated into his demonstration.
The defense team claims that O’Keefe was actually killed inside a fellow officer’s home and that Read was targeted as a convenient suspect. This theory has led to a group of supporters, including Schiffer, accusing law enforcement of a cover-up, resulting in confrontations in Canton, where the murder allegedly occurred.
Legal Implications of the Ruling
The dismissal of charges against Schiffer sets an important precedent for protecting various forms of political expression. Timothy Bradl, Schiffer’s attorney, praised the judge’s decision, emphasizing the First Amendment protections that were upheld.
“There wasn’t a leg to stand on,” Bradl said.
Bradl further commented on the swift and decisive nature of the ruling, stating, “Hats off to the judge. He didn’t make everyone wait and ruled from the bench. Everything was completely protected by the First Amendment. This was political speech.”
While the judge acknowledged that Schiffer’s conduct was a “sophomoric expression” of opinion, he ultimately ruled it as protected speech. This decision reinforces the idea that even unconventional or provocative forms of protest can fall under the umbrella of constitutionally protected expression.
Ongoing Controversy and Public Reaction
The rubber duck protest and its legal aftermath have added another layer of complexity to the already contentious Karen Read case. Schiffer’s actions, which included placing ducks outside a pizza shop owned by a relative of a fellow officer and in O’Keefe’s neighborhood, have sparked debate about the boundaries of acceptable protest and the impact on communities involved in high-profile legal cases.
As Karen Read’s retrial, postponed to April following a mistrial in July, approaches, the case continues to draw attention and divide opinion.
