Loading...
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a town’s policy allowing only “respectful and courteous” public comments at town meetings violates the state constitution. The policy of Southborough was found to have violated protections for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote the opinion striking down the policy.
The policy at issue partly reads: “All remarks and dialogue in public meetings must be respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal or slanderous remarks. Inappropriate language and/or shouting will not be tolerated.” Kafker found that while civility is encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting. What can be required is that the public comment session is conducted in an “orderly and peaceable” manner.
The plaintiff in the case, Louise Barron, was accused of violating the civility policy during a town meeting and threatened with physical removal. She said the town was “spending like drunken sailors,” and the town board violated the state’s open meetings law. A town official interjected, telling Barron that the public comment session would be stopped if she wanted to slander town officials. Barron then called the official “Hitler,” leading to a recess and her eventual removal from the meeting.
Kafker stated that the state constitutional provision regarding the right to assembly was drafted by John Adams, with some help from his cousin Samuel Adams. It provides for the right to assemble, the right to give instructions to representatives, and the right to seek redress of wrongs. The provision, Kafker said, “expressly envisions a politically active and engaged, even aggrieved and angry, populace.” It also “reflects the lessons and the spirit of the American Revolution.”
Join our community of successful legal professionals – sign up for LawCrossing today.
Regarding the free speech issue, Kafker said the town’s civility code is directed at government speech, and it is content-based, requiring strict scrutiny of restrictions. The policy also appears to be viewpoint-based, Kafker said, because it allows “lavish praise” while “disallowing harsh criticism of government officials.”
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
“In this country, we have never concluded that there is a compelling need to mandate that political discourse with those with whom we strongly disagree be courteous and respectful,” Kafker said.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling serves as a reminder that the freedom of speech is a crucial component of democracy and that attempts to restrict it must be viewed with suspicion. While civility is desirable, it cannot be enforced at the expense of free expression. The ruling will impact other towns with similar policies, which must now be reviewed to ensure compliance with constitutional protections.
