The Case of Destiny Marie Diciccio: A Misreported Incident and the Broader Implications for Free Speech
In August 2025, a claim circulated on social media that 27-year-old Destiny Marie Diciccio became the first person imprisoned in Florida for antisemitic speech under a new anti-antisemitism law, charged with "Disorderly Conduct - Uttering an Illegal Opinion" and sentenced to 30 days in jail, including 10 days of work duty.
This narrative, which sparked outrage over alleged violations of First Amendment rights, was later debunked as a misrepresentation of the facts. The case, however, raises critical questions about free speech, the application of disorderly conduct laws, and the balance between combating hate and protecting constitutional liberties.
The Facts of the Case
Contrary to the viral claim, court records and police reports indicate that Destiny Marie Diciccio was arrested on August 2, 2025, in Pinellas County, Florida, for disorderly conduct, but not for antisemitic speech or "uttering an illegal opinion." The incident occurred at a licensed establishment in St. Petersburg, where Diciccio allegedly engaged in tumultuous behavior by yelling and screaming at another customer and throwing a slice of pizza, constituting a breach of the peace.
She pleaded "no contest" to the charge, a second-degree misdemeanor under Florida Statute 877.03, which defines disorderly conduct as acts that "corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons." Notably, the complaint and arrest affidavit made no mention of antisemitism, hate speech, or any opinion-based offense. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Diciccio was sentenced to jail time; instead, she faced standard penalties for the misdemeanor, which could include fines or probation but not mandatory incarceration as claimed.
The false narrative appears to have originated from a misleading social media post on X, which included a screenshot asserting that Diciccio was charged under Florida’s new anti-antisemitism law, House Bill 269, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2023. This legislation, aimed at curbing antisemitic incidents, strengthens penalties for hate crimes targeting religious communities, such as vandalism or harassment motivated by religious bias.
However, it does not criminalize speech itself unless it involves direct threats or incitement to violence, and Diciccio’s case had no connection to this law. The misinformation highlights the dangers of unchecked viral claims and the need for critical scrutiny of such narratives.
Disorderly Conduct and the First Amendment
The claim that "there’s no such thing as disorderly conduct" and that it inherently violates the First Amendment is an oversimplification. Disorderly conduct laws, like Florida’s Statute 877.03, exist to address behaviors that disrupt public order, such as fighting, brawling, or creating a public disturbance. These laws are constitutional when narrowly applied to conduct rather than protected speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld disorderly conduct statutes in cases like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), which established that "fighting words"—face-to-face insults likely to provoke immediate violence—are not protected by the First Amendment. However, the Court has also ruled that speech, even if offensive, is protected unless it meets strict criteria for incitement, true threats, or fighting words, as seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Cohen v. California (1971).
In Diciccio’s case, the charge stemmed from physical actions—yelling and throwing an object—not the content of any speech. Had she been charged for expressing an opinion, antisemitic or otherwise, without incitement or threat, such a charge would likely violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s high bar for restricting speech, as noted by legal scholars, protects controversial or offensive expressions, particularly at public institutions or in public spaces. The viral claim’s assertion that Diciccio was jailed for an "illegal opinion" is not only factually incorrect but also misrepresents the legal framework surrounding free speech.
Florida’s Anti-Antisemitism Laws and Free Speech Concerns
Florida’s House Bill 269, signed in Jerusalem in 2023, and subsequent legislation in 2024 defining antisemitism in state law, aim to address rising antisemitic incidents, such as vandalism, harassment, and littering with hate propaganda. These laws enhance penalties for crimes motivated by religious or ethnic bias but do not criminalize speech absent a credible threat or physical act. For example, HB 269 makes it a felony to project antisemitic images onto property without permission or to harass based on religious garments. A 2024 bill further adopts a definition of antisemitism to guide law enforcement, but it explicitly avoids infringing on protected speech.
Critics, including free speech advocates, argue that such laws risk chilling expression by creating ambiguity around what constitutes antisemitism, especially in politically charged contexts like criticism of Israel. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has emphasized that public universities, bound by the First Amendment, must avoid punishing speech that, while offensive, does not cross into unprotected categories like incitement or harassment.
In Diciccio’s case, no such speech-based prosecution occurred, but the misinformation surrounding her arrest fuels broader debates about whether hate speech laws could be misapplied to suppress dissent.
The Cost of Free Speech vs. Government Tyranny
The argument that the First Amendment’s costs—offensive or hateful speech—are outweighed by the need to prevent government tyranny is a cornerstone of American constitutional philosophy. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was designed to protect individual liberties against oppressive regimes, ensuring a margin of freedom to challenge authority. Landmark cases like Texas v. Johnson (1989) and *Falwell v. Flynt (1988) affirm that even deeply offensive speech, such as flag burning or parody, is protected to preserve democratic discourse. Suppressing speech to curb harm risks creating a slippery slope where the state can arbitrarily define "acceptable" expression, a hallmark of authoritarianism.
However, the counterargument posits that hate speech, particularly antisemitic rhetoric, can escalate into violence or create hostile environments, justifying limited restrictions. Florida’s laws reflect this tension, aiming to deter hate crimes while navigating constitutional boundaries. The Diciccio case, though unrelated to antisemitism, underscores the importance of accurate information to avoid inflaming these debates. Misrepresenting a disorderly conduct charge as a speech-based prosecution risks eroding trust in both legal systems and free speech protections.