Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PakkyT t1_jecys6d wrote

Reply to comment by abhikavi in Ramifications of the "Right to be Rude" in Massachusetts by abhikavi

Here is the actual ruling...

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/03/07/k13284.pdf

BOLD emphasis mine...

"Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the
content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting without violating both provisions of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provide for a robust protection of public criticism of governmental action and officials. What can be required is that the public comment session be conducted in an "orderly and peaceable" manner, including designating when public comment shall be allowed in the governmental meeting, the time limits for each person speaking, and rules preventing speakers from disrupting others, and removing those speakers if they do. "

There is a full 29 pages there your chairperson should maybe read rather than going by what they think they interpreted from a clickbait headline. Maybe they shouldn't be chairperson if they are unable to look up laws and ruling and simply reading them.

4

abhikavi OP t1_jed0b01 wrote

Thanks for the ruling, and pointing out the time limits portion. That's.... pretty obvious.

> Maybe they shouldn't be chairperson if they are unable to look up laws and ruling and simply reading them.

The thing that really concerns me is he referenced meeting with quite a few other people in the town, some in high level positions, before this meeting.

So... are they all under this impression? He certainly conveyed it as though they were.

However, he also said "all the boards" in town were dropping Citizen's time, and two more of their meetings were just published tonight and... that does not seem to be true.

I am generally concerned with where he got this information, and that he was ready right then and there to revoke an important free speech provision over it.

1

PakkyT t1_jed2d50 wrote

Unfortunately public participation can be eliminated if the chairman chooses, but it still has to be equally applied to all. As I mentioned in my first reply, you have to apply the rules equally to all so if you don't want certain people to speak then you have to prohibit everyone from being able to speak. But once you open the floor to anyone you have to give an equal opportunity to everything regardless if they want to call you Hitler or say things you don't like.

2

1000thusername t1_jef5oft wrote

To be perfectly honest, they’ve probably wanted to drop citizen comments for a long time and now they think they have a life raft to do so. Sink that raft.

2

abhikavi OP t1_jef6ff2 wrote

I've emailed the board citing the ruling and asking if the legality of time limits changes the board's feelings on the matter.

I'd like to at least start with the benefit of the doubt that this was a misunderstanding, and some panic.

2