Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

alzee76 t1_jck4zok wrote

Massholes fighting for their right to be massholes.

97

sprint6864 t1_jck60ns wrote

Sometimes I really, really hate people

−13

G-bone714 t1_jck8r3t wrote

More like “right to be disruptive in a town meeting”.

−14

Bunsmar t1_jck8wm6 wrote

This is a very good thing, and if it helps, think of it as "the right to be thought of as rude". Like "the freedom to be offensive" sounds a little off-putting until you realize that it means that you are free to exist as you are even if some neighbor finds your politics or sexual orientation "offensive"

308

EquivalentInflation t1_jcke1zc wrote

On the one hand: first amendment rights are vital.

On the other: I feel for the people who started this lawsuit. Getting screamed at in a public meeting hall as your job would absolutely suck.

40

ShadowOrson t1_jckh7gi wrote

It is interesting that this court has decided it is a right to be rude, this court will now accept contempt of court, won't they?

−17

not-rasta-8913 t1_jckhk95 wrote

Replying to Bunsmar (#2,252,852)

A lot of people don't realize this. If we lose the right to be rude or offensive it becomes a very slippery slope. Especially if some idiot puts it into law. Then all one would have to say "I find that offensive" to get someone in trouble. Emphasis on "say" because what someone finds offensive is totally subjective and they could be lying and we'd have no proof.

117

DE-EZ_NUTS t1_jckigqr wrote

We had a similar case in Canada (might have been QC to be specific) where someone was beefing with their neighbour.

0

gooseberryfalls t1_jckj43p wrote

Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III,

​

Its good that we are regularly reminded of why the laws we have today were put in place. It reminds us there are fundamental truths that we should hold dear

14

mormagils t1_jckj620 wrote

As much as it sucks, it's a good ruling. Civility codes are notoriously hard to enforce, and often are misused if the content is perceived to be rude. Ultimately stuff like this just gives bad faith actors weapons to wield against their political opponents, and that's not a good thing in local political situations because the sample size often results in partisan misuse.

114

hawklost t1_jckjhw5 wrote

Replying to ShadowOrson (#2,253,448)

Maybe read the article? Even just the first paragraph would show your comment has no value considering what it says.

Here, I'll help.

"In a decision that jangled the nerves of some elected officials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week reaffirmed a basic liberty established by the founding fathers: the right to be rude at public meetings."

Note that 3 extra words at the end of the paragraph change the context from "being rude anywhere and everywhere" to just during public meetings.

Now, you Miiiight try to argue court is a public meeting, but it isn't. Many states require the courts to be Public, but they aren't considered Meetings and so they are not Public Meetings.

8

gortlank t1_jcknv3f wrote

Replying to hawklost (#2,253,600)

I mean, if you want to entirely miss the point of the previous comment in favor of pedantry, feel free, but the same principle that first amendment rights are sacrosanct, even if rude or offensive, should obviously apply to courts as well.

Judges routinely use contempt of court as bludgeon to coerce decorum, because offending their delicate sensibilities, or gods forfend, impugning their character, is such a slight on their dignity that the hammer of the state must be used to prevent it.

Judges are babies, which is why they’d never allow this in court. Any legal argument as to why that’s acceptable is just post facto justification as to why their paper thin feelings are more important than rights.

−13

Grantley34 t1_jcko9a6 wrote

They're not called Massholes for nothin!

1

hawklost t1_jckp8ge wrote

Replying to gortlank (#2,253,852)

A court of law is not a public discourse not a place to air your grievances. It is there to decide if someone did something to break the law or to at least decide responses Based on the law.

Calling a judge Hitler because they interpreted the law against you or someone you IS contempt.

It disrupts and slows proceedings. Potentially tampering with jury views in a way that isn't legal and frankly is just a baby throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way. So yes, a judge can say the person is in contempt and remove them. But unlike public meetings, there are ways to redress the judges decision and make a trial a mistrial if they push too far.

4

neotericnewt t1_jckpt7e wrote

Replying to gortlank (#2,253,852)

Contempt of court isn't really about rudeness as much as allowing the court process to continue. If you're having outbursts in court and you're not listening when the judge says to move on its interfering with the court process. Contempt of court is when you disobey orders from the court or otherwise interfere or obstruct the court process.

5

gortlank t1_jckrq8n wrote

Replying to neotericnewt (#2,253,976)

That’s ostensibly what it’s for, but judges routinely use it as a cudgel for what they deem offensive or inappropriate speech, especially when directed at them, even if only done in moments where those in court are allowed to speak.

They have the latitude to use it in practically any manner they want, and they routinely use it specifically to coerce decorum.

−8

gortlank t1_jckrzwd wrote

Replying to hawklost (#2,253,945)

Naw, if offensive or rude speech is protected, if the defendant has been asked what they plead, for example, and they say “not guilty, mister Hitler”, that should be fully protected.

I never said anything about speaking out of turn or disrupting proceedings with outbursts.

Judges, and you’d know this if you’d been an officer of the courts or spent any amount of time in court rooms, regularly use contempt as punishment for when someone is rude to them, even if it’s within their allowed moment of response during the process.

Edit: ahh, downvoted for saying something you dislike, eh? I imagine you’d love to have me thrown in jail for that, censorious individual that you are.

Luckily I acknowledge your right to downvote as speech. A favor I’m sure you wouldn’t return.

−13

Seattle_gldr_rdr t1_jcldxgh wrote

This is funny-but-not-funny. They're not wrong that being unable to enforce any civility code will discourage quality people from seeking public office. It's already a problem. Huge numbers of decent people are quitting or avoiding public office because it's not worth the constant confrontation with rage-babies. We're going to end up with people in office who are just there for the grift, and pathologically contentious people like MTG or Boebert who relish in the trash talk theater.

6

dw444 t1_jclgjxq wrote

Is this the same town that tried to invent the guilty bystander circa 1997?

4

Darklord_Bravo t1_jcljpi1 wrote

Well, since it goes both ways, just start calling people like this filthy, disgusting names, and insulting their family. If you can't take it, GTFO. Apparently it's legal, so why not?

If you're just going to throw consideration out the window, why should I adhere to those rules, when others clearly wont?

I'm not saying it's appropriate, or even right. But if you have to sit there and listen to the rude toxicity of these people, I say go ahead and give it right back.

3

Ma1eficent t1_jclnaww wrote

Replying to EquivalentInflation (#2,255,537)

Lol, how hilarious. Apparently you failed to comprehend what you read as it says nothing about how they can't get local government officials, and the only reference to anyone not working on the board anymore is a guy who was on it but now has been replaced.

−11

Educational_Hawk1029 t1_jclqgui wrote

Made me think of Ghost Busters. “Being miserable and treating others like dirt is every New Yorker’s God-given right!”

22

HiE7q4mT t1_jclsbi9 wrote

Replying to EquivalentInflation (#2,253,219)

It's only by virtue of prohibiting rudeness that it was struck down. If people are being disruptive or threatening, they could be removed under a different or revised code.

Getting up and saying quietly, 'Mr. Mayor you are a twatwaffle' is rudeness. Screaming the alphabet at the town hall because it keeps the reptilians away is disruptive, even if the person does not mean to be rude, and their speech not offensive in terms of content.

25

EquivalentInflation t1_jclw696 wrote

Replying to Ma1eficent (#2,255,886)

> Still, some observers caution that unchecked unpleasantness could have unintended consequences: fewer volunteers to take on the often thankless work of running town boards, for example, and fewer opportunities for public comment, which are not required by law.

4

I_Fart_It_Stinks t1_jclx7z5 wrote

Replying to EquivalentInflation (#2,253,219)

I agree, but the long term effects of something like this could have chilling effects. Who gets to determine of someone is "rude?" It's very subjective. Can you get kicked out for not saying sir or ma'am, talking to loud, what if someone thinks someone is being sarcastic. This would be an easy way to silence any differing views from the public. Hopefully we chill out on our own and can act civilly as a society without the government telling us to.

6

Ma1eficent t1_jcm329m wrote

Replying to Nathund (#2,256,617)

I knew we were at an all time low for reading comp scores in america. But this is ridiculous. Read the article, and makes sure you understand each sentence before you move on to the next.

−3

commandrix t1_jcmh9jg wrote

Not a bad thing. Rudeness is a subjective thing. I consider it rude for people to yell at each other at the top of their lungs but I also know that's a normal thing in some places.

2

AtomicBombMan t1_jcmit8s wrote

Good. Laws like this are always used to silence opposition and insulate the powerful from criticism and dissent.

1

Cinema_King t1_jcmpq3a wrote

I hate rude people and think they’re a drag on society but as much as I hate to say it being rude can’t be outlawed unless we could come up with a very good definition that only punishes legitimately awful people and doesn’t allow for any abuse which I know is impossible.

5

NarrowSalvo t1_jcn1uie wrote

Replying to mormagils (#2,253,571)

I agree.

Sadly, though, we live in a world where people think that just because something is legal, it is something they SHOULD do. There are whole youtube channels devoted to pushing your rights to annoy people right up to the line, then hiding behind "what I'm doing isn't illegal". (Ok, but you're still an asshole.)

It's also not illegal to mock mentally handicapped people and to call people racial slurs. I feel like we're about 2 minutes away from someone starting a channel to exploit that.

2

Elmodogg t1_jcn6d1j wrote

Replying to EquivalentInflation (#2,253,219)

The plaintiff here doesn't appear to have screamed, though. She pointed out (correctly as it happens) that the town had been violating the open meetings law. She was rudely cut off by the public official and accused of slander for saying that true thing. Then she responded by calling the official "Hitler."

An exaggeration, sure. But she had just been falsely accused by that official of lying.

Civility is a two way street.

2

DamonRunnon t1_jcotiwz wrote

I thought that had been a right since the 1600s.

1

CarbonaradeBurke t1_jdggq6h wrote

There’s a distinction between being rude or offensive and being disruptive/harassing/nuisance, which is what I’m getting from this?

1