GilfordGrok

One of the topcs for discussion this past Thursday night from those advocating in favor of Football and against the co-pay for health care benefits were several calls for those that serve to refrain from publicly commenting on the proceedings of those meetings.

May I remind people that there is this small matter of the First Amendment?  While there are a number of rights in that Amendment, the most often quoted is the Right to Free Speech (the Government shall make no law abridging ....)

It does not say "Get elected to the Budget Committee and hang up your Rights here".  I am guaranteed that right, just as you are in the audience (both of us pursuant to the Chair or Moderator' rules running that meeting or gathering).

I see this tactic often in the blogosphere, where those of one opinion are actively protested to the point where they are literally drowned out or even physically attacked on stage (think former Senator Kerry at the New School in NY, Jim Gilchrist or Ann Coulter at various college campuses).  

In all cases, there is a group of special interest activists that believe in "free speech for me, but I get to determine what is or is not for thee!".  They mask their hatred for the opposing message by declaring it hate speech, or divisive, or wrong, feeling that declaring it as such to be sufficient for it to create silence.   Of course, they have the right to speak when and on what ever they wish.  Yet, when the opposition speaks up, they will shout down those speakers or do other things to disable that side of the story (See the antics down at Columbia University when Jim Gilchrist tried to speak).

I also put it here that quite a bit of what was said in characterizing the Budget Committee was downright wrong, and I could only shake my head in listening as it came from people that had not ONCE attended any of the public meetings of the BudComm.  

I have no problem on being rightfully skewered for facts that I mangle - and I have publicly apologized when I have done so in the past.  I do have problems with people outright distorting the actions of this BudComm - nothing is arbitrary and we all want the best for this town.  Even the folks on the BudCOmm that I disagree with are honorable folks (and yes, sometimes it takes a bit for some of the heated discussion die down a bit).  I do not denigrate any of them for holding to their views - nor should you of ours.

In answer to those that wish for Doug and I to cease speaking publicly?  Er, good luck with that!  I have no intentions of stopping my blogging - in fact, you have spurred me one and I will be doing more.  Nor will it change an iota of what I do with Meet The New Press, nor with the local media.  

A bit strident?  Perhaps, but the right to Free Speech is one I cherish dearly and refuse to lose it by not using it. Again, there is nothing that says "once elected, you hang your First Amendment Rights up while serving".  Nor will I recuse my self (as some of the "loyal opposition" would like). 

I ask - isn't that similar to those that work for the town or the SAU speaking out at meetings at which they would directly benefit from higher spending?  Should not they recuse themselves as well?

Or how about the Town Employees that signed the Petition Warrant article to disband the current Budget Committee?  Since the Library Director, to single out a Department Head, has to bring her budget to the BudComm, isn't that self serving?  A true conflict of interest?

So why should my mere speaking out be shackled?

Besides, if you don't like what I write, go start your own blog.  Easy to start, but a LOT harder to keep going for the long haul....besides, I might link and comment on what you write!