In light of the recent arrest of a Connecticut Taco Bell patron on a charge Drudge calls "ridicule on account of race, creed or color," I wanted to know whether the state law says that.

Apparently, it does.

According to Yale Daily News, the law prohibits more than race-based ridicule:

Connecticut defines a hate crime as the "deprivation of rights of others, desecration of property, ridicule on account of race, creed or color," or "intimidation based on bigotry or bias."

Or do journalists enjoy an exemption not shared by ordinary people?

UPDATE: Here's the state law:

Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both.(1949 Rev., S. 8376.)

MORE: Eugene Volokh sheds light on this incident, arguing that the "fighting words" doctrine does in fact allow face-to-face insults (as opposed to "speech that isn't directed to a particular hearer") to be prohibited, but that the "ridicule on account of race" prohibition would be unconstitutional.