Alton Tries to Silence its Citizens

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by ITD

I hope Mr Clay has a big payday.

This is what's wrong with America--think about how many problems are a result of an overly litigious society. From what I've seen and read, this guy's an ambulance chaser.

[jeffk]

In my opinion it doesn't matter how annoying this guy is or what his past is. This was a time of public comment. It is reasonable to have rules of order and IF he violated them, he could be asked to stop. It is unclear to me that he did violate the rules and even if he did bend them a bit it is not in the interests of a public board to come down on citizens so they should have given him broad leeway. Of course it is up to the board members to make the decision to cut him off and they did. Now they are paying the price for their lack of patience. Was it worth it? They shut him out of his 5 minutes and now the board is going to spend many hours in legal meetings and the town will bear the costs of the legal fight. Was this a winning plan? I'll bet the board members will be cursing their intolerance before too long.

The reason we should tolerate "free speech", even when presented by annoying individuals, is that EVERYONE who speaks in opposition to something strongly supported by someone else is going to be perceived as "annoying". Maybe next year the Alton board will do something that ticks off someone else. That person might rise to speak in opposition and probably become annoying in doing it. There is a time limit and rules to prevent extremely disorderly conduct. Those seem sufficient safeguards to prevent monopoly of the boards time. Let the fools have their few minutes.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by jeffk

In my opinion it doesn't matter how annoying this guy is or what his past is. This was a time of public comment. It is reasonable to have rules of order and IF he violated them, he could be asked to stop. It is unclear to me that he did violate the rules and even if he did bend them a bit it is not in the interests of a public board to come down on citizens so they should have given him broad leeway. Of course it is up to the board members to make the decision to cut him off and they did. Now they are paying the price for their lack of patience. Was it worth it? They shut him out of his 5 minutes and now the board is going to spend many hours in legal meetings and the town will bear the costs of the legal fight. Was this a winning plan? I'll bet the board members will be cursing their intolerance before too long.

The reason we should tolerate "free speech", even when presented by annoying individuals, is that EVERYONE who speaks in opposition to something strongly supported by someone else is going to be perceived as "annoying". Maybe next year the Alton board will do something that ticks off someone else. That person might rise to speak in opposition and probably become annoying in doing it. There is a time limit and rules to prevent extremely disorderly conduct. Those seem sufficient safeguards to prevent monopoly of the boards time. Let the fools have their few minutes.

Jeff: you are a bright guy. Thanks for summing this up nicely.

[Tired of Waiting]

And remove the "Live Free or Die" !!!

I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread where the poster is willing to take "Free Speech, Redress of Government and others" away from a person just because they are a nut job and a thorn in the sides of some.

Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE." Are you kidding me!! And some of the posters on this board are OK with this?

I live in a small town that has Selectmen and is run by town meetings. We also have folks who seem to be on the nutty side. But NEVER has the board shut them down for expressing their opinion even if calling for the board to resign. But yes we have had folks removed from select and town meeting for getting unruly. That is defined as using foul language, issuing threats, or refusing to end their talk when time has expired.

I have read the town rules and watched the video and at NO time did the speaker violate the rules or the Constitution. The only violation I saw was the Selectmen violate the speakers right to free speech and redress of the Government.

Every single citizen of the town should come to the defense of Mr. Clay, not because they agree with him and his positions but because if the board can shut him down they may be next.

Do not take you rights lightly and defend those rights for every person regardless if you agree with them or not, but just because they are using your rights as well as theirs. If he looses his rights then you WILL loose yours.

ToW

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

And remove the "Live Free or Die" !!!

I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread where the poster is willing to take "Free Speech, Redress of Government and others" away from a person just because they are a nut job and a thorn in the sides of some.

Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE." Are you kidding me!! And some of the posters on this board are OK with this?

I live in a small town that has Selectmen and is run by town meetings. We also have folks who seem to be on the nutty side. But NEVER has the board shut them down for expressing their opinion even if calling for the board to resign. But yes we have had folks removed from select and town meeting for getting unruly. That is defined as using foul language, issuing threats, or refusing to end their talk when time has expired.

I have read the town rules and watched the video and at NO time did the speaker violate the rules or the Constitution. The only violation I saw was the Selectmen violate the speakers right to free speech and redress of the Government.

Every single citizen of the town should come to the defense of Mr. Clay, not because they agree with him and his positions but because if the board can shut him down they may be next.

Do not take you rights lightly and defend those rights for every person regardless if you agree with them or not, but just because they are using your rights as well as theirs. If he looses his rights then you WILL loose yours.

ToW

I think there is one thing missing in your analysis as to why Mr. Clay was told to be quiet and get up from the table and either leave the room or sit in the audience.
The BOS took a legal and binding vote that accused Mr. Clay of using defamatory language against the board. Therefore it was not up to Mr. Clay to decide as to whether the board was right, or wrong. The chair made a motion and the board approved it. From that point on the board took the necessary action to have Clay removed and that did happen.
We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated, but now it is going to be up to the court/s to decide what the outcome will be.

So, all that being said, neither you nor I can say who has violated any laws, it will be up to the court/s to decide.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

He may have an argument with the BOS. But the game he is playing now involves a civil suit against a police officer that was doing his job. That's dirty pool as far as I'm concerned.
Should the civil suit against Alton's Police Chief and Police Department be embraced by the people of Alton as heroic in the fight for free speech?

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

He may have an argument with the BOS. But the game he is playing now involves a civil suit against a police officer that was doing his job. That's dirty pool as far as I'm concerned.
Should the civil suit against Alton's Police Chief and Police Department be embraced by the people of Alton as heroic in the fight for free speech?

I stated they should rally to defend his "rights". They don't have to defend all of his law suits. They should put pressure on the BOS to amend the way they act in "public" meetings and how they treat those present at the meetings.

True the Courts will say if his rights were violated or not. But do you want your rights whittled away by the courts? Because that is what can and is happening in this country. Only you and your fellow citizens can stand up and DEFEND your rights.

When you stop defending your fellow citizens rights you loose yours as well. And it doesn't matter a tinkers damn if you agree with the other point of view or not.

ToW

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Rusty

....We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated...

I don't like getting into debates where perhaps both sides were wrong at least in part, but abuse of "free speech" in this case and others gets me. Nowhere in the constitution, when talking about a person's right to speak freely, does it say that others shall be forced to listen.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by DickR

I don't like getting into debates where perhaps both sides were wrong at least in part, but abuse of "free speech" in this case and others gets me. Nowhere in the constitution, when talking about a person's right to speak freely, does it say that others shall be forced to listen.

You are right!!

No one needed to listen. But that is NOT what happened. They prevented him from speaking through the use of force.

It's a lot different not to listen to a speaker and stopping them from speaking with force.

I hope you can see the difference.

ToW

[Charlie T]

I personally think the BOS should have allowed his rant and when 5 min was up ask him to step away. If I was on the BOS I would have taken that 5 min to check email, step out for a bathroom visit, play solitaire on my phone or do anything other than listen to him. I doubt the rules state that anyone is forced to listen and pay attention during his time, he simply must be allowed to speak during his 5 min of fame.
If this guy was allowed his time he would have no recourse other than to sit down and shut up, he knew the rules and his legal rights long before he ever set foot in that room. If the BOS put any intelligent thought into it they could have avoided the unfortunate results, and the cost that is sure to result.

CT

[Mr. V]

I suspect that as he was arrested, that old line from Uncle Remus floated throught Clay's brain: "Please, bre'r fox, don't throw me into that briar patch."

He trolled the BOS perfectly.

[Natt]

I understand that this is Clays' MO. Making the same claims over and over again. Offering constructive criticism is one thing but continuing once he makes his point is simply being obstructive. The select board are basically volunteers with a complex workload. They have to set a limit.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Natt

I understand that this is Clays' MO. Making the same claims over and over again. Offering constructive criticism is one thing but continuing once he makes his point is simply being obstructive. The select board are basically volunteers with a complex workload. They have to set a limit.

Agreed a limit is set. And that limit is FIVE minutes per their rules not Mr. Clay's. Once he was recognized to speak he had 5 minutes and was not finished when shut off.

ToW

[dickiej]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!

[8gv]

Originally Posted by dickiej

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!

Or shoot you like what happened to Putin's adversary this week!

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by dickiej

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!

Appreciate the literary reference, but I think this is much more of a Brave New World.

[Patiently Watching]

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Patiently Watching

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

So in your view reconciliation between all parties involved is to destroy a man’s career, embarrass the governing body of Alton, and cost the tax payer a large sum of money. Make an example out of one side of the issue and call it a day.

Public servants aren’t supposed to be human beings…have emotions or allowed to express their feelings while in office…suck it up or get out.

This type of attitude is why no one wants to run for any office in town government.

OK now throw the 1st amendment violation at us again!!....Geeeeezzz!!!

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Rusty

So in your view reconciliation between all parties involved is to destroy a man’s career, embarrass the governing body of Alton, and cost the tax payer a large sum of money. Make an example out of one side of the issue and call it a day.

Public servants aren’t supposed to be human beings…have emotions or allowed to express their feelings while in office…suck it up or get out.

This type of attitude is why no one wants to run for any office in town government.

OK now throw the 1st amendment violation at us again!!....Geeeeezzz!!!

If the one side is violating the citizens rights then yes destroy a carrier, embarrass a Government body and do what ever it is that is necessary to DEFEND your rights.

Rusty, Look at your sig line: “Private property and freedom are inseparable.” — George Washington

Now go do some research on property rights and how they have been eroded by the courts. Did you know that according to the Supreme Court of the United States the town can take your property through "eminent domain" and give it to a private developer if his project when completed would raise more taxes for the town?

Here, I decided to help with you search: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

I can tell you why that is. Because when the folks of a town in New Jersey faced the town taking their homes, few very few people from around the country came to their defense. When they lost WE all lost.

Think about this for a minute. You own some lake front property with lets say 500 foot of water front and five acres. Your family owns a small cabin. A contractor says if the town takes your property and gives it to him He'll build 200 condos and bring in significant tax revenue. Guess what? They can do it!!

When it comes to "OUR" rights you better think about fighting for them or "we" will lose them just like we did our property rights.

Oh and if you want to read about the CT case where the town took property of private citizens so Phizer could build a research facility then click this!!! http://www.governing.com/columns/eco...utrage-in.html

ToW

[wifi]

Good point TOW.


What I am having trouble with (probably due to lack of understanding) is why public "servants" are given an exception in responsibility if they do wrong,
such as the town picking up all the legal fees. Maybe if they took some personal responsibility for their actions, power trips would have some consequences for all involved, and it would be a better place to live...

[Rusty]

Believe it or not I’m OK with fighting for my rights and helping other people with theirs as long as we stay within the law of the land, educate ourselves about the violation, and methodically take action.

In the case of Mr. Clay it might have been better for him to have gone through some of those methods to get any government official removed from office.

He used his way and I guess there are a lot of people who agree with his method, I just don’t agree with it. I know what to do and where to go to get a petition started to remove someone from office. It takes more work to do it but I guess using my 1st amendment rights by just saying resign, resign, resign is OK because I have that right.

Fair enough..have a good day.

[8gv]

Originally Posted by Patiently Watching

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

I can tell you from experiance that one receives more than one's fair share of "citizen abuse" while working at McDonald's.

[MAXUM]

This is going to backfire on the town of Alton if they opt to push this through the court system. The town residents have a right to address the board so long as their "rules" are followed which in this case it's pretty obvious the gentleman did. Now as for the content of his remarks, we need to be very careful here because as it has been pointed out before dessention is a part of every debate or discussion. The citizens must be given the chance to voice thier opinions whatever they may be so long as it is done in a civilized and respectful manner. Now is there merit to what this guy was saying? Who knows and that really who cares. He doesn't like what he sees for whatever reason and has stated that he feels the board is not doing thier job and therefore should resign. That is hardly defamitory it is an opinion. Heck after reading a bunch of the comments on this thread some of you could easliy be accused of defaming and being derrogatory torwards Mr. Clay if the same measuring stick is used by the board. Heck how can a democracy even function if the citizens are not able to speak thier mind? Let's not forget these officals work FOR the people - they are not anoited, they are not royality, they make the choice to serve the public and if that means having to sit through a little criticizm well so be it.

As for Mr. Clay, while I admire his willingness to stand up a say something he looses a whole lot a credibility by pushing the issue the way he did to the point of making a nuscense of himself and ultimately being arrested.

There is ample blame on both sides of the issue here.

[Denny Crane]

A guy like this doesn't deserve a conversation of over 80 posts. He won. He got his 15 minutes of fame. Public meetings are to discuss agendas and address concerns, not to waste time. He should run for office then, but he'd be lucky to get 10 votes.
DC

[8gv]

Ya but...

Some people like to watch football. Others watch public discourse. A bit of spectator sport I think.

[belly_button_biter]

I think they should all just resign

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think there is one thing missing in your analysis as to why Mr. Clay was told to be quiet and get up from the table and either leave the room or sit in the audience.
The BOS took a legal and binding vote that accused Mr. Clay of using defamatory language against the board. Therefore it was not up to Mr. Clay to decide as to whether the board was right, or wrong. The chair made a motion and the board approved it. From that point on the board took the necessary action to have Clay removed and that did happen.
We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated, but now it is going to be up to the court/s to decide what the outcome will be.

So, all that being said, neither you nor I can say who has violated any laws, it will be up to the court/s to decide.

From my post: "Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE."

I watched the video and Mr, Clay did not in any way use defamatory language.

"A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade."

Show me where any statement had any of those results and I'll then agree.

The selectmen voted to violate his rights because their feelings were being hurt.

As for the part of the law suite against the police any lawyer is going to name all involved with the action. The complaint against the officer is for pain and suffering as stated for his arm being bent up behind his back. Don't know if he was really hurt or not but the court will decide that.

ToW

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

This is what's wrong with America--think about how many problems are a result of an overly litigious society. From what I've seen and read, this guy's an ambulance chaser.

That's seems a.bit defamatory.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's seems a.bit defamatory.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood whom I was referring to as an ambulance chaser, but in either case there would be no reputation to be hurt and, therefore, not defamation.

However, if that was a subtle joke, bravo--subtlety is so rare these days, I assume it doesn't exist online.

[tis]

I agree with you jeffk EXCEPT that I doubt if the Selectmen will care if they have to spend a lot of money on legal fees. It's not their money they are wasting. Now if it was THEIR money it might be a different story------