Gettysburg Connection is pleased to share the opinions of Adams County residents. This article is an opinion piece (op-ed) that represents the opinion and analysis of the writer. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of Gettysburg Connection or its supporters. We'd love to share your thoughts. Please leave a comment below or email us: mail@gettysburgconnection.org.

Some notes on public comments

I just read the Gettysburg Connection article, “Planning Commission considers time limits for public comment.” 

While public officials may terminate comments that are obscene, exceed the allotted time limit, or lack decorum, they may not censor speech based on its viewpoint. It’s concerning when I see many local governing boards restricting public comment in ways that are unconstitutional. 

opinions 1 e1723218099221

Americans have the right to express their views about local leaders at public meetings. Public officials must be able to tolerate criticism and dissent. Most of all, they must respect the First Amendment rights of the communities they serve, including the right to redress grievances.

There was a Pennsylvania viewpoint discrimination lawsuit (Marshall vs Amuso) where, after almost a year of litigation, the Pennsbury School Board agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay $300,000 in attorney’s fees and nominal damages.

“It is axiomatic that criticism of school officials, school employees, school rules and regulations, school budgets, and school curricula is germane to the business of school boards—regardless of whether school board members want to hear such criticism or believe that it is fair,” reads the complaint. “The First Amendment prohibits the exclusion of these viewpoints from public speech at school board meetings.”

Furthermore, see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limit the ability of a public official to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with “actual malice”, meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be untrue. 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sue Cipperly
Sue Cipperly
5 days ago

Thank you for writing about this very important topic! Councils, Commissions, School Boards, etc. need to be mindful not only of the Sunshine Act, but the U.S. Constitution.

1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x