Americans can sometimes get salty in debates over politics and even in debates with politicians. It’s woven into the fabric of our civic life.
And it’s this being argumentative, saucy, even downright rude that the Massachusetts Supreme Court said was every citizen’s First Amendment right.
In a case challenging a Massachusetts township’s civility code that the plaintiff alleged led to her being unconstitutionally silenced at town meetings, the court sided with her right to speak her mind:
Decorum, the new decision concluded, was not a top priority for the cousins John and Samuel Adams when they drafted Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III, disparaged at the time as “the Royal Brute,” in a profane and ungracious manner.
“There was nothing respectful or courteous about the public assemblies of the revolutionary period,” the court wrote in its opinion. “There was also much that was rude and personal, especially when it was directed at the representatives of the king and the king himself.”
Just how rowdy, bawdy, and even dangerous the founding generation could be is very often forgotten in modern-day handwringing over trigger words, sensitivity readers and speech codes. For all the harsh words aimed at a distant king – and the physical assaults unleashed on some of the king’s agents in the colonies – that same founding generation was skilled at turning its venom against itself (sometimes with deadly results).
And we should not forget the presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. That heated contest between two titans of the revolutionary era gave birth to that other enduring American tradition: the negative campaign.
None of this, of course, gives anyone license to be a jerk (and worse) at a public meeting. There’s enough negativity in the world as it is. We don’t need more of it just because the law says you can pop off as the spirit moves you.
But rather than a government ban on such rude behavior and speech, the preferred remedy is more speech and a general public expectation of civility.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Suspicious White Powder Found At Manhattan DA’s Office
Well we have one judge that understands Our Constitution as Written good now get more and disbar those that keep trying to darn right Lie, Change, Twist, Distort, Ignore, Our Constitution as Written that includes biden his administration, governors, mayors, any politicians, state and federal governments it is Treason to try anything to Change, Twist, Distort, Ignore, Our Constitution as Written
Free Speech Victory Hooray
The first amendment can’t survive without the second…..
….what a tripe-like essay. Besides not giving any information on the town, the court case, the court it was held in or specifics about the judge and the decision, we get idiotic history lessons. “Good for freedom of speech, just be careful, how you use it”! What garbage. If the politicians signed up for the job, they get what they earn. Use that freedom and tell them all to get their act together, before the citizen grand juries does it for them.
Rignt. When the First Amendment is operative, you can say anything you want. You just need to face your consequences.
Wow, sure would have been nice to hear the story, before the lecture began. I’m really proud of the Judge that knew the Constitution and made the right decision.