Ramifications of the "Right to be Rude" in Massachusetts

Submitted by abhikavi t3_126wcne in massachusetts

Quick summary for those out of the loop: a recent Supreme Court case ruled that MA citizens have the right to be rude during the time allotted for citizens to speak during town meetings. NYT coverage, paywall bypass link.

My municipality is reacting to the court case by considering pulling Citizen’s Time from meeting agendas. (So much for a win for free speech, huh?)

It sounds like their read on this case is that someone could abuse this time to, say, read Mein Kampf during Citizen’s Time, and they wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop them. The court case left measures like time limiting/mic cutting/etc open; however, my town doesn’t want to be the one sued over it, and I kinda don’t blame them.

And apparently Citizen’s Time isn’t legally required whereas right now, if you do offer it, you can’t impose any kind of restrictions on civility.

I think some of the boards are kind of panicking; they can picture someone coming into the meeting and being horrific and then if they time-limit them or adjourn the meeting, they end up being sued. So they’re all leaning towards removing Citizen’s Time altogether right now and forming subcommittees to come up with legal alternatives where the potential for abuse is less. (Unclear how possible that’ll be.)

I’m writing in to suggest that instead of permanently abolishing Citizen’s Time, they take a show of hands each meeting to remove it from the next meeting’s agenda. (Technically the chairperson can just take it off, but this makes it a group decision and adds some transparency if they choose to ignore the board’s show of hands.) This at least keeps it as a temporary measure until a new plan is in place. I really hate the idea of legally removing it without an alternative formalized.

I’m also suggesting they take emails for now and read them aloud at meetings on request as a temporary alternative to Citizen’s Time; I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like this would give them more discretion, because I can’t imagine a serious lawsuit because someone emailed them Mein Kampf and they refused to read it. But also as a downside, this does give them a lot of discretion (e.g. what if they only accept emails from people they know & like?). It basically relies on their integrity to not restrict free speech; but that still feels better than no option to speak at all.

Are there any better suggestions I could suggest? I understand why they’re worried, but I want to make sure I keep my ability to make a fuss over the font size choices for the new town center sign.

Is anyone else’s municipality having these debates? What are they coming up with?

58

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DumbshitOnTheRight t1_jeb90ef wrote

My personal feeling is to limit each speaker's "Citizen time" to two minutes or so. If they refuse to stop they can then be ejected, same as anyone else disrupting the proceedings.

62

abhikavi OP t1_jeb9w76 wrote

I'd be fine with that. It sounds like the boards are afraid that'll be the next lawsuit though, because this court case didn't clarify whether time limits etc could be imposed.

10

majoroutage t1_jebbip9 wrote

Banning it still sounds like the worst of all the options, though, in all honesty.

18

UltravioletClearance t1_jebrn21 wrote

Courts have consistently ruled the government can set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. Limiting debate time would absolutely comply with that since limitless free speech time would cause municipal governments to grind to a halt.

18

CheruthCutestory t1_jebhq5c wrote

It will surely be a law suit but they are on pretty firm ground of content neutral time, place and manner restrictions then. As long as they enforce the time restrictions equally.

6

AutomationBias t1_jebp3bs wrote

I go to town meeting every year, and as much as we're all annoyed by the cranks who monopolize the microphone, it's not really practical to limit individual speakers to two minutes - especially when there are big ticket items to be discussed.

8

Splime t1_jecbvoa wrote

Funnily enough, here in Littleton everyone gets a 3 minute limit at Town Meeting, apart from the board presenting the article which gets 10 minutes. At least here though, if something has made it to Town Meeting, the important discussions have already happened.

5

majoroutage t1_jeb7ifl wrote

>My municipality is reacting to the court case by considering pulling Citizen’s Time from meeting agendas. (So much for a win for free speech, huh?)

Sounds like a quick trip right back to court.

The American people have a right to redress their government with their greivences. Whether the government wants to hear it or not (obviously they don't) does not matter one bit.

23

CheruthCutestory t1_jebhzf1 wrote

By allowing time for the community to speak they are creating a public forum. And then if they do that they can’t restrict certain kinds of speech but allows others. If they don’t let anyone speak no public forum. They have no obligation to create a public forum. Neither Mass law or the Constitution require it.

10

abhikavi OP t1_jeb7wc0 wrote

According to the NYT article, opportunities for public comment (Citizen's Time) are not actually required by law in MA right now.

7

majoroutage t1_jeb9knf wrote

The argument that would be made is that it's another Constitutional violation.

8

abhikavi OP t1_jebbb0g wrote

I think that's likely a harder case to sue, especially as other methods of commenting exist (email, snail mail). It'd be a different story if periods for public comment were codified into law.

Although I could still write in and point out that this action might not be the shield they think it is. I definitely don't think it'd be an unreasonable lawsuit.

3

DeliPaper t1_jeb8xca wrote

>The American people have a right to redress their government with their greivences.

God bless the USPS

6

DumbshitOnTheRight t1_jeb95qp wrote

> The American people have a right to redress their government with their greivences.

The can always write emails and letters. Banning Citizen's Time merely prevents the immediate redress, not all redress.

4

majoroutage t1_jebafd7 wrote

throws them in the trash with junk mail "Yes, of course I read them."

I'm not sure that counts. A public forum is the only way to guarantee you are heard.

8

DumbshitOnTheRight t1_jebe36t wrote

They're not required to give any weight to spoken words either.

6

majoroutage t1_jebekss wrote

True. But they have to listen.

4

DumbshitOnTheRight t1_jebewza wrote

They have to hear. Listening isn't mandatory.

7

abhikavi OP t1_jebfsws wrote

I think the more important thing is that it's in public.

If someone shows up and states their grievance and I think they're kinda cuckoo, eh.... I probably support the board in ignoring them.

If someone shows up and has some great points and the board ignores them.... I want to keep that in mind next election.

It really sucks if free speech gets de facto limited to private channels; we lose all the other benefits of it being in public.

4

abhikavi OP t1_jebbk3b wrote

The thing is, it'd either take a lawsuit, or laws would have to be added in MA to protect public speaking time.

Honestly kind of appalling to me to learn this isn't a codified right. I'd assumed this was legally required, not down to the discretion of the chairperson.

0

majoroutage t1_jebd4gm wrote

There's a lot of stuff that has been understood as the rights of the people for a long time, now our divisive and power-drunk government has learned it can push those boundaries and maybe or maybe not get in trouble for it.

2

abhikavi OP t1_jebfbbu wrote

The thing is, I genuinely have been impressed with my local boards. We have a lot of competent, hard working, level headed people on them. I think they usually make a lot of solid decisions, and when I disagree, I still very much see where they're coming from.

Like, my local politics isn't crazytown bananapants, like some can get. (Ok, the school board has been a little, in the past. But definitely not like, board of health, which is one of the ones pulling Citizen's Time.)

I don't think this is a power play, I think they're just panicking at the idea of someone showing up, really crossing some serious lines, and not feeling like they have the right to stop or limit it.

But.... that doesn't make my losing Citizen's Time access in a bunch of places any more palatable. Well-intentioned or not, it's an important access point.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_jebnt31 wrote

Depending on the agenda item, other laws require allowing public comment, such as Conservation Commission, Planning Board, ZBA, and Board of Health hearings. But public netting in MA you are right that MA doesn’t require allowing people to speak at public meetings in general.. Also know that the public MUST be able to speak at Town Meeting, but not every municipality has Town Meeting.

It really frustrates me that your municipality is considering shutting down public comment times in public meetings in regard to this decision. I’d suggest contacting your state representative and state senator, and show them the response your town is considering, and ask that they put forth legislation that requires allowing public comment periods with reasonable limits at all public meetings. I’ve worked in municipal government for 20 years (I’m regional now) and I would wholeheartedly support that legislation.

12

dew2459 t1_jef1ucv wrote

>Also know that the public MUST be able to speak at Town Meeting, but not every municipality has Town Meeting.

Sorry to be pedantic, but this is not exactly right. Every registered voter has the right to speak at a Town Meeting. A Town Meeting is a legislative body, and only "legislators" (voters) have an unconditional right to address it (much like only city counsellor have the right to speak in a city council meeting). Since I'm being pedantic, state and local laws also allow some others to address Town Meetings for specific things (like town department heads).

If a board has a "general public input" time, they cannot restrict who talks to even "just residents" or what they say. If a Town Meeting had that kind of "open mic" time they presumably would have to let anyone (voters and non-voters) speak, but I have never heard of a Town Meeting having that, usually you can only talk about specific warrant items.

If someone wants the long discussion of why Town Meetings (as opposed to generic town board meetings) can restrict speakers: 1st US circuit court opinion in Curnin v. Town of Egremont. It is short and readable.

3

MOGicantbewitty t1_jef2lja wrote

Dammit.. I acknowledge your very correct adjustment. Makes me mad I missed that! I hope your very smart self is doing good work that involves municipal government

1

dew2459 t1_jef88ot wrote

Thanks for the kind words, though I'm a bit more modest about smarts, mostly I have had the opportunity to attend various state municipal org meetings where experienced town officials and lawyers discuss exactly this kind of stuff. I've been in various town functions for quite a few years, it is mostly fun, met some good people, and hopefully did & still do some good.

2

abhikavi OP t1_jebte23 wrote

My Board of Health is one of the boards considering the removal of Citizen Time. It sounded from their meeting like they'd reviewed this with legal already; however, now that I go and look at MA regulations for boards of health, I see there are a lot of references to public comments, and it certainly sounds like they're required for several specific things. It seems like it'd get very complicated trying to not provide this at each meeting, and still provide it where required.

I guess I'm not sure though; does "public comment" legally mean "time to speak in public"? Would letters etc count, or is this requiring an opportunity at an open forum?

I think I'll start with outlining my concerns and sending them to my Board of Health members. I'd like to give them the opportunity to respond. (I really do think they are generally pretty reasonable folks who are just panicking right now.) I agree though that at a state level, it would be really great to have this codified into law.... I had assumed it was!

The Board of Health also talked about how other boards would be yanking their Citizen's Time in response, but they didn't say which boards, and the BOH and Ways and Means are the only ones that've had meetings since the ruling (W&M didn't bring it up). My point being; it sounds like this could be a big problem across town, but I don't know for sure if it is yet.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_jebu45y wrote

The Board of Health is not required to allow a general public commen at the end of their agenda. But specific public hearings for septic permits, and other regulatory things, do require the ability to speak publicly at the public hearing. So, you are allowed to speak under state regulation about your neighbors variance request to build their leachfield closer than allowed by your town bylaw to a wetland, but you are not allowed to speak to a general concern about actions the Board of Health should take at the end of a meeting or whenever, unless the chair decides to recognize you.

I really think the state should make it required to allow some form of public comment with a reasonable time limits and reasonable topic limits at every public meeting. And I’m a public official… Take up an extra 30 minutes of my time in a meeting, please! If that means we have active invested residents, who care about what’s happening in the municipality, fuck yeah. Bring it on!

3

Rindan t1_jebskn6 wrote

>It sounds like their read on this case is that someone could abuse this time to, say, read Mein Kampf during Citizen’s Time, and they wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop them. The court case left measures like time limiting/mic cutting/etc open; however, my town doesn’t want to be the one sued over it, and I kinda don’t blame them.

Have you ever been to a town hall meeting? Citizens say absolutely bat shit crazy stuff all of the time. The consequence of someone reading Mein Kampf in their 2 minutes of time is... absolutely nothing. Nothing happens. Everyone is just bored and annoyed.

>My municipality is reacting to the court case by considering pulling Citizen’s Time from meeting agendas. (So much for a win for free speech, huh?)

Any town that gets rid of basic citizen engagement because someone might say something annoying or rude is doing a disservice to democracy for absolutely no conceivable benefit of the citizens they supposedly serve, besides sparing the dozen people at a town hall meeting from being slightly annoyed for 2 minutes. They should feel shame at their failure to uphold basic democratic principles because of their fear of a brief moment of mild discomfort and annoyance.

>I think some of the boards are kind of panicking; they can picture someone coming into the meeting and being horrific and then if they time-limit them or adjourn the meeting, they end up being sued.

Run a camera. Time limits to speaking time are legal. You can cute someone off after their unhinged rant once the time limit is over, just like you can cut off the little old lady who wants to talk about about the kids next door playing too loudly for 10 minutes. This isn't even hypothetical. You can watch Town Hall footage all over the internet of people's unhinged or hilarious rants, and after the time is up, no gives a shit and just moves onto the next person.

>Are there any better suggestions I could suggest? I understand why they’re worried, but I want to make sure I keep my ability to make a fuss over the font size choices for the new town center sign.

I don't understand why they are worried and I give them no such charitability. The absolute worst case scenario is that the dozen people at a town hall meeting listen to an unhinged 2 minute long rant, feel mildly annoyed, and then move onto the next person. That's it.

Angry and rude words won't hurt you. You don't need to be afraid. You certainly don't need to start ejecting basic democratic principles and participatory government over this incredibly stupid and completely irrational "fear" of hearing annoying and rude words from a random citizen.

7

instrumentally_ill t1_jebt44i wrote

Only in MA are people so proud of being rude

5

PakkyT t1_jeel6w6 wrote

Well we have learned that if you tell your leaders to fuck off enough, you get to create a brand new country. Worked then.

1

wsdog t1_jecczg5 wrote

They are so afraid of people saying their thoughts out loud, lol

5

PakkyT t1_jecvr1k wrote

Sounds like you, as well as your municipality, don't understand what was ruled on. It wasn't that people can tie up a meeting for hours reading a book. It was about that in an open forum everyone needs to have the same rules applied to them. So if Mary speaks politely for 5 minutes on her view, then everyone should get at least 5 minutes even if they just say fuck fuck fuck for 5 minutes straight.

All your municipality needs to do it put a time limit per person and they can say whatever they want during that time. Then when everyone has had their say, "Citizen's Time" is over. This isn't difficult.

5

abhikavi OP t1_jecwrn7 wrote

I rewatched the meeting to be sure what was said, and the chairperson definitely seems under the impression that time limits have become illegal during open forums.

It doesn't seem like that's the case.

I think I'll email and ask him if having time limits changes his feelings about the situation. I certainly feel like that's a perfectly reasonable solution to having a fair, moderated public forum.

3

PakkyT t1_jecys6d wrote

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

great_blue_hill t1_jed6j1y wrote

Gov’t can define limits on manner of speech but not content of speech.

2

1000thusername t1_jebs73h wrote

Comment time is enshrined in bylaw where I live, and town meeting would never agree to repeal it.

Not sure where you live, but look into a citizens petition for town meeting to pass a similar bylaw to ours where every committee meeting must have comments as the first item. Not optional.

4

abhikavi OP t1_jebu2pp wrote

It sounds like our system has been individual bylaws; so it's Board of Health bylaws that Citizen's Time go under, not city-wide bylaws. And so, Board of Health can just vote to repeal those for themselves. (They have not done that yet; one member tried to hold a vote, and the compromise agreed upon was that Citizen's Time would be pulled for next month's meeting, and a vote will be held then.)

I'll be bringing this up with my town reps, as I'd feel a lot more comfortable if it took a city-wide debate to remove public forum options. Or even state wide; I might also contact my state reps.

1

1000thusername t1_jebufjt wrote

Sure. If you find they’re not warm to it because of the paranoia you’ve referenced, depending on your town’s specific requirements, you can type something up, get the required # of voters to sign it, and it has to go into town meeting for a vote. Bylaws by the people!

3

dew2459 t1_jef3hnc wrote

>but look into a citizens petition for town meeting

Go for it! Just 10 signatures for a citizen petition article at an annual town meeting, and 100 for a special town meeting (caveat: while rare, a town charter can change those numbers, so double check with your town clerk).

1

warlocc_ t1_jebt1yq wrote

Wouldn't be the first time politicians didn't like a law and tried to ignore it and got smacked with more lawsuits.

3

Mechanicjohn12 t1_jeclrei wrote

I see no issue with citizens taking their allotted time to berate their politicians for decisions made which have significantly impacted their way of life.

3

Beck316 t1_jec0i1r wrote

I think really depends on your town's bylaws with regard to how meetings are conducted. In my town's Annual Town Meeting or Special Town Meeting we can't speak about anything we want. We have to speak about whatever motion or amendment is open for discussion. There's a moderator who is ON IT and will bang the gavel. We also can't attack or mention anyone by name in comments.
Board of health decision-making meetings are technically public and we're allowed to go watch if you want but I don't believe their decisions need voter approval.
Edit for capitalization of the important, unique meetings.

2

dew2459 t1_jef682v wrote

> Town Meeting

Minor nit/explanation: a Town Meeting technically isn't a public meeting; it is a semi-closed meeting of a town legislature that just happens to have a lot of legislators. They don't even have to let non-voter general public in. I have seen some debate (from attorneys and moderators) about how much this ruling will effect Town Meetings (short summary: no one knows for sure), as opposed to all the regular board meeting in a town which are definitely covered by it.

1

Beck316 t1_jefd6ta wrote

How is town meeting not a public meeting? My town is small enough that we do not have representatives or whatever. Individuals vote by show of hands (raised index cards). We do have a section for non voting speakers/ visitors to sit.

1

dew2459 t1_jegm91j wrote

It is a small but important distinction; I say it isn't public because the the moderator doesn't have to let "the public" into the meeting, such as those non-voter visitors. Only registered voters and a few select town/school employees are required by law.

In a regular public meeting (at least in MA, where the state Open Meeting Law governs public meetings) you simply can't do that, you must let everyone in, even random tourist visitors who just want to watch. Town Meetings are not under open meeting law, they have their own laws (in fact two chapters of state laws).

I've been to Town Meetings in maybe ten towns, and as part of a job a friend has been to several dozen. The moderators are always happy to welcome guests, but (for example) the auditorium in my own town is small enough that the moderator sometimes does not let visitors in until it is clear there will be enough space for all voters first. Perfectly legal, but if the selectmen did that for a selectmen's meeting (a public meeting), it would be an open meeting law violation.

1

flamethrower2 t1_jecmjf3 wrote

Free speech is not good, we recently learned. r/MassachusettsPolitics

2

ggtffhhhjhg t1_jefdyy9 wrote

Is this we’re they air their grievances and accuse everyone as being commies and making there children LGBTQ?

1

flamethrower2 t1_jefrff6 wrote

I'm more concerned about misinformation. Nothing is gained when misinformed people speak, and it might be harmful. Let's say nothing of people who speak in order to misinform leaders, to achieve their policy objective.

In some of the rural western states, people got library closures (they wanted) because certain children's books (they were rarely even novels for adults and older children) were present in the library.

1

cleancutmover t1_jeem4ss wrote

The more attention this matter gets, the worse the situation will become. I can go to your town and read sex novels for 3 minutes if I please. Any attempt to limit my speech is a violation of my 1st amendment rights and your town will be writing me a check. Its gross, but but there certainly is an increase in these losers out there. Best you can do is let them speak uninterrupted, nobody react, and move on.

2

DanieXJ t1_jec8ve5 wrote

First or second part of Mein Kampf?

The two parts are two totally different monsters.

Also, pretty sure Open Meeting law may have some input into all this drama.

1

MineOtherwise7387 t1_jebvlel wrote

Great idea. Social media already controls free speech and the Justice Dept is already trying to criminalise parents who criticise school boards so why not?

Life, Liberty and Censorship.

−2