It's not easy to be volunteers in town, but breaking the law is breaking the law.
>> So ma'am, if you want to slander town officials who are doing their very best
>> I'm not slandering
>> Then then we're gonna go ahead and
stop the public comment session.
[CROSSTALK] >> You're Hitler.
>> All right, we are moving into recess.
Thank you.
>> That was a problem.
The State Supreme Court in Massachusetts,
they have now ruled to allow interactions like that.
Specifically from the lady that was calling him a Hitler,
not necessarily Hitler, it's a little different.
So according to the highest court in that state,
it's unconstitutional to mandate "good manners and decorum at these town
halls and these board meetings because freedom of speech," bro.
That woman named Louise Baron, she was threatened with removal from that
Southborough board meeting for criticizing that board.
That was very offended by her words, but she was
trying to hold the town accountable for breaking the state's open meeting law.
A violation of the state attorneys general had also confirmed.
So apparently she was right.
They didn't like this.
She pushed back that way and then attempted to remove her.
So she said, no, I'm suing your ass.
The court sided with her.
Here's those details.
The court found that her reference to Hitler was quote "certainly rude and
insulting," they can't deny that.
But was protected speech, nonetheless.
The town's insistence on civility "appears to cross the line onto viewpoint
discrimination; allowing lavish praise, but
disallowing harsh criticism of government officials with," the ruling said.
"Although civility can and
should be encouraged in political discourse," the justices wrote, "it cannot
be required." I think it's pretty obvious when we see some of our politicians
speaking, the name calling doesn't happen as much, but they're definitely not kind.
It struck down an unconstitutional Southborough's "civility code" that had
previously been in place for public comment.
And meetings which required "respectful and courteous" discourse, "free of rude,
personal or slanderous remarks." I guess for folks who were getting called these
names and maybe would be attached to them sitting in these places.
It's detrimental to their possibilities for staying in their positions you guys.
So they were fighting against it, but freedom of speech, bro.
What's your thoughts here?
>> Speech is speech.
It's not like she threw tea on them, she just said what she felt, okay?
But I think it's wonderful that the courts sided with her.
But I don't know, go out to California, Stockton and remember those BLM.
About five of them just were a little disruptive, city council meeting.
They got booted, okay?
And I remember police said, they were so
violent notice how there was not one arrest.
Now, if they show up and get kicked out, there's not one arrest, stop.
Said their body cams got knocked off during the Struggles, stop.
Okay, really?
So yeah, it's wonderful and everything.
But would it be applied to everyone?
That was just my follow up question?
>> Right >> Okay, so look, you can be mean,
I don't think there's anything wrong with criticism.
That was my first time hearing the sound bite and
I'm gonna be honest man even I was like, wow, I think there is a line.
Alright, I don't wanna sound like an ass here, but
like there is a line >> Hitler too much for you.
>> Yeah, like it was I'm being honest it was [LAUGH] I
think like if you bring the receipts, right?
These are some of my favorite videos I see on Twitter.
Is when what was my man's name who ran for Senate in Louisiana and
lost to the guy who's like call a crackhead.
>> Gary.
Yes, Gary Chambers when he called out Connie like
that was an amazing video- >> I loved it.
Stop shopping online Connie, stop shopping online.
>> She walked out because she knew she was in the wrong.
Like there there is a good way for public discourse to happen.
That, I personally felt like crossed the line.
But yeah, you should be allowed to call these people out.
I remember when there was a town in Oklahoma that
was conducting a deal with the private prison industry.
One person brought the receipts on how there could potentially be
a conflict of interest with some of the board members.
And they voted to essentially silence the person who was bringing said receipts.
So there is a way to protect free speech while also having some sort of decorum.
What I will say is in, the words of one grifter facts,
don't care about your feelings and I will stick with it that
if you do bring those facts, it will Trump anything else.
>> How do you combat that line?
Cuz I gotta believe, I agree with you to an extent.
Where is the line?
What you can call people idiots, dummies.
>> I think going to the big H is kind of getting there, I don't know.
I'm I crazy?
>> No, no that's why I figured maybe this could have been somewhere in
the middle and I feel like you have the answers of thing.
>> Here's the thing.
it might have been somewhere in the middle before 2016, okay?
But then that guy with little, hands started calling everyone out and
saying whatever he wanted to say, remember, okay?
He said outlandish things.
>> Yeah. So where's the line and
who decides if you can do it in the rose garden?
And attack an Asian reporter, very respected reporter for national network.
Then where's the line and who decides, little hands?
I don't know.
>> Whoever agrees with the folks mostly.
Let's shift gears.
By the way though,
they were saying this could lead to less conversations within the city council.
And things like that and they could suppress speech,
I guess an auxiliary manner.
So they're concerned, they're concerned because people want to talk,
they'll be limited.