Free Speech, Say What?

Free Speech, Say What?

Regarding the third OML complaint filed by the Templeton Board of Selectmen against the Templeton Advisory Committee:

From the August 24, 2017 TA report:

The following is intended to provide information where a full memo may not have been
warranted or supplement the provided information.

Business Meeting or Workshop: 

4. c. The response takes refuge in a defense on the basis of free speech rights and does not acknowledge the issue of a majority of the board viewing or commenting upon matters over which they have domain. That said, it seems the best approach would be a continuation of that expressed by the Board at its last meeting. 

What a concept! When Templeton's "select" few try to stomp on Adv. committee's right to free speech, the Adv. Committee would take "refuge " in the right to free speech. Gotta love it!

Original Complaint:

 Advisory Committee response:

-->

August 16, 2017

Templeton Board of Selectmen

160 Patriots Rd

PO Box 620

East Templeton, Massachusetts 01438

          Re: Your OML Complaint of July 27, 2017

Dear Selectmen:

This is the response to your Open Meeting Law Complaint dated July 16-17, 2017

You have alleged that Julie Farrell, Robert May and Beverly Bartolomeo violated the Open Meeting Law

(OML) on July 16-17. This violation is alleged to have occurred on the blogsite Pauly’s Templeton Watch. 

Exhibit A –  Blog  post  “Who’s Next “with comments.

FACT: Julie Farrell, Robert May and Beverly Bartolomeo are members of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is a seven-member board. A quorum of the Advisory Committee is 4 members. There is no quorum present within the four corners of the blog posting Who’s Next “.

FACT: Transfers for FY 17 can only be acted upon by JULY 15, 2017. This blog and the comments posted were July 16, 2017 and July 17, 2017.

The Advisory Committee would also call your attention to the Supreme Court case - Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission 558 U.S. 310(2010):

Citizens United and the Restoration of the First Amendment

Hans A. von Spakovsky

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.1

1.     Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. _____ (2010), slip op. at 33.

Abstract: The right to engage in free speech—particularly political speech—and the right to freely associate are two of this nation’s most important founding principles. That is why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is so important: It protects these principles against those, including President Barack Obama, who favor a federal ban on independent political advocacy by corporations. Critics of the Citizens United holding justify their opposition with two claims: that the decision will allow foreign corporations to affect American elections and that share- holders must be protected from political expenditures by corporations in which they own shares. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that all of these concerns are, to borrow from Shakespeare, much ado about nothing. Beyond that, the proposed remedies raise serious constitutional concerns. “

The Advisory Committee members claim the same First Amendment rights as upheld in

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

As corporate citizens of the United States, Advisory Committee members should have the same First Amendment protections to political free speech as Citizens United. People are corporations, too.

Political free speech and news reporting is protected under the First Amendment. Political free speech includes blogs, and all forms of social media. The Templeton Board of Selectmen’s OML complaint infringes upon the First Amendment rights of Advisory Committee members to engage in political free speech. Using the Templeton Board of Selectmen’s logic:  Today, it’s blogs. Can Facebook and Twitter accounts be far behind from the same infringement of First Amendment rights?

Therefore, after consideration of the facts as we understand them, it is the opinion of this body that none of the Advisory Committee members nor the body violated the Open Meeting Law as alleged in your complaint and we decline to take action on it.

Regards,

                 

Julie Farrell

On behalf of the Templeton Advisory Committee

Cc: Templeton Town Clerk (electronically)

       AG’s Division of Open Government (electronically)