To the editor:

To my friends and neighbors on the DEI Committee, Allow me to introduce you to five famous (perhaps infamous) fellow Americans. Clarence Brandenburg, Gary Lee Johnson, Mary Beth Tinker and Paul Cohen won significant free speech cases before the US Supreme Court and all since 1969. These cases were both shocking and ground-breaking at the time. Brandenburg a KKK member advocated violence, Johnson, was a flag-burner, Cohen sported a shirt that said, “Reject the Draft” (but used a more colorful verb!) and little Mary Beth, a 13-year-old Middle School student protested the Vietnam War by wearing a black arm band.

The Supreme Court has left an indelible mark on our legal history and has clearly stated that on these and other occasions the government cannot suppress speech unless it incites immediate lawless action. If you propose a “respectful speech” pledge, you come dangerously close to compelled speech territory which too has been declared unconstitutional.  May I ask, how does one begin to define “respectful speech”? Will someone be allowed to share Your Mama jokes, recite the Lord’s prayer, or hurl a bevy of profane insults at town council members during chamber meetings? Will you need to conjure Ann Landers on such matters to divine the proper outcome?

Our final and most recent “famous” American, Louise Barron an elderly, Southborough, Mass. resident this past spring won a “right to be rude” case against the local board of selectmen. See link for details. (https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2023/sjc-13284.html)

Essentially, Mrs. Barron sued the chair and the town for violating her rights to freedom of speech and to petition government officials for redress of grievances under Articles 16 and 19 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the chair had violated Mrs. Barron’s constitutional rights to speech and petition, that the town’s “civility code” (respectful speech?) was facially unconstitutional, and that the chair could be held personally liable for damages resulting from his infringement of Barron’s rights. 

Need I cite more?

While I commend your desire to cultivate a climate of civility, it cannot come at the expense of our constitutional and absolute right to free and unfettered speech! Although free speech may be a messy and raucous affair, it reflects the beautiful tapestry of human thought and expression.

And these are worth preserving.

Scott Fuller

Barrington