Smith: The Status of Free Speech in Canton

During the public comment period at the September 12 meeting of the Canton Select Board, the board voted to abruptly adjourn the meeting, cutting off residents who had planned to speak after a couple of the speakers had gone over the allotted three-minute timeframe. To me, it was an astounding turn of events as the meeting was progressing much more smoothly than prior meetings; there was simply no need for the meeting to end this way.

Certainly, in order to accomplish its business, a public board has the right to put a time limit on public comment. However, there is a way to do so while still encouraging and welcoming public comment and discussion.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that public bodies may establish reasonable restrictions, which may include establishing how long a public comment period may take and how much time each speaker has to speak. The court recently stated this in its March 2023 decision of Barron v. Kolenda, in which it held that restricting the content of public comment does, however, violate articles 16 and 19 of the state constitution. In addition, while the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law does not require that a public body allow public comment, it is strongly encouraged.

However, as noted in the SJC decision, Article XIX of the Massachusetts Constitution provides, “The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.” Furthermore, Article XVI of the state constitution provides, in part, that the “right of free speech shall not be abridged.” These provisions of the constitution have a basis in the writings of John Adams, who stated that town inhabitants are “vested with the right to assemble in their town halls and to deliberate upon the public affairs of the town.”

The public comment policy of the Select Board had been to allow three minutes per speaker and a total of 15 minutes for the entire comment period. This policy is consistent with rulings of the Massachusetts SJC and with the policy of many other municipalities, and it allows Canton’s residents the opportunity to “deliberate upon the public affairs of the town” as envisioned by John Adams.

However, in advance of the September 26 meeting, the Select Board announced they were eliminating the public comment period completely, thereby eliminating the ability of the citizens to exercise their free speech rights at this public meeting. The board apparently does not value the role of the participation of the citizens in their local government.

Four of the five members of the board have been in public service, whether on the Select Board or other elected and appointed boards or committees for years, some for decades. It is beyond me that they do not understand the basic tenets of an open government and robust public discourse.

John Adams surely would view the recent decision by the Select Board to end public comment at their meetings as a violation of the rights of citizens to redress their government. That is certainly how I view it.

Christine Smith is a mother of three, an attorney and longtime Canton resident. The views expressed in her column are solely her own.

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=119022

Posted by Christine Smith on Sep 29 2023. Filed under Opinion. Both comments and pings are currently closed.