Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

PakkyT t1_jed2d50 wrote

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

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

blounge87 t1_jed0ij7 wrote

Reply to comment by Thiccaca in A new report found that Mass. has the highest GDP per capita in the country and is among the states least dependent on federal dollars. by truthseeeker

Have you seen the bike lanes in FINLAND, the winter is not the problem at all, it’s an excuse to not invest in infrastructure and Americans buy it because most of them never leave their cars anyways and have no idea that they will indeed not freeze to death the vast majority of the time.

9

abhikavi OP t1_jed0b01 wrote

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

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_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_jecwrn7 wrote

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

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_jecvr1k wrote

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

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