To the editor,

The Portsmouth town government has embarked on an all-out attempt to crush the freedom of speech of one of its citizens. This process is now in the courts and should the town prevail, it will have far-reaching consequences for all citizens of the town. We are facing nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the ability of all citizens to criticize government.

While it is not clear that the town expected Mr. Michael DiPaola to fight back, the people of Portsmouth now have our very own First Amendment battle underway in the courts. The town government has threatened the owner of a house on Bristol Ferry Road with very heavy fines and court action over a series of signs on his property that criticize town building officials.

When the town sent a letter to Michael DiPaola threatening him with fines and a court summons on Jan. 14, it stepped over a bright red warning line. In its hurry to crush a critical citizen, it blundered into an all-out First Amendment fight with Mr. DiPaola and the Rhode Island ACLU. The town is now in U.S. District Court, facing a protracted and expensive effort to assert its power to suppress public dissent.

In a Jan. 23 statement from Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin, Portsmouth government vowed that the sign suit has “no merit” and will be “vigorously defended.”

How the town made this blunder is still not clear. The council has overall authority over lawsuits but has not met on this matter either in public or executive session, and avoided any discussion at its Jan. 25 meeting. But they could have intervened at virtually any stage. The only possible answer is that they support this suit. Silence is consent. In the end, their lack of action does not avoid their individual and collective responsibility for this attempt to suppress Mr. DiPaola’s speech.

In public comments the town has made the case that Mr. DiPaola did not conform to any of the sign ordinance’s requirements for size, setbacks and permits. What the town seems to have missed is that it has no legal power to regulate speech of any sort, especially political speech, and that the requirements of the ordinance are an affront to the Bill of Rights. All of this is being done in the “Birthplace of American Democracy” as it says on the town’s welcome sign.

The existing case law presents a very high legal fence for the town to get over. In The City of Ladue, et al v. Margaret P. Gilleo (1994) the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that is nearly identical to the case brought by Mr. DiPaola. It decided unanimously for the defendant, Ms. Gilleo, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing the opinion for the court. 

No matter how this case works out, the council of Portsmouth has betrayed the citizens who elected them. They are in blatant violation of their oath of office, required by the U.S. Constitution, to protect our fundamental rights. 

Larry Fitzmorris

President, Portsmouth Concerned Citizens

50 Kristen Court

Portsmouth 

Please support your local news coverage

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the local economy - and many of the advertisers who support our work - to a near standstill. During this unprecedented challenge, we continue to make our coronavirus coverage free to everyone at eastbayri.com - we believe it is our mission is to deliver vital information to our communities. If you believe local news is essential, especially during this crisis, please consider a tax-deductible donation. 

Donate Here

Thank you for your support!

Matt Hayes, Portsmouth Times Publisher