This is a very good thing, and if it helps, think of it as “the right to be thought of as rude”. Like “the freedom to be offensive” sounds a little off-putting until you realize that it means that you are free to exist as you are even if some neighbor finds your politics or sexual orientation “offensive”
Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III,
​
Its good that we are regularly reminded of why the laws we have today were put in place. It reminds us there are fundamental truths that we should hold dear
As much as it sucks, it’s a good ruling. Civility codes are notoriously hard to enforce, and often are misused if the *content* is perceived to be rude. Ultimately stuff like this just gives bad faith actors weapons to wield against their political opponents, and that’s not a good thing in local political situations because the sample size often results in partisan misuse.
alzee76 says
Massholes fighting for their right to be massholes.
sprint6864 says
Sometimes I really, really hate people
G-bone714 says
More like “right to be disruptive in a town meeting”.
Ok-Construction-7727 says
Chef’s Kiss
Bunsmar says
This is a very good thing, and if it helps, think of it as “the right to be thought of as rude”. Like “the freedom to be offensive” sounds a little off-putting until you realize that it means that you are free to exist as you are even if some neighbor finds your politics or sexual orientation “offensive”
[deleted] says
[deleted]
EquivalentInflation says
On the one hand: first amendment rights are *vital*.
On the other: I feel for the people who started this lawsuit. Getting screamed at in a public meeting hall *as your job* would absolutely suck.
thehillshaveI says
constitutionally protected massholes
ShadowOrson says
It is interesting that this court has decided it is a right to be rude, this court will now accept contempt of court, won’t they?
DE-EZ_NUTS says
We had a similar case in Canada (might have been QC to be specific) where someone was beefing with their neighbour.
gooseberryfalls says
Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III,
​
Its good that we are regularly reminded of why the laws we have today were put in place. It reminds us there are fundamental truths that we should hold dear
mormagils says
As much as it sucks, it’s a good ruling. Civility codes are notoriously hard to enforce, and often are misused if the *content* is perceived to be rude. Ultimately stuff like this just gives bad faith actors weapons to wield against their political opponents, and that’s not a good thing in local political situations because the sample size often results in partisan misuse.