Editorial: Freedom of Speech vs. Civility

Recently the Commonwealth sent a notice to all municipalities. It informed town officials that in a public meeting, speakers must be allowed to speak even if they are rude. Officially, freedom of speech trumps civility.

Maybe that's right. Maybe we can shout and call people names by right. I don't know the answer, but I bet collectively we could find it. Find what Mary Flynn called the Stockbridge way - the reconciliation between rights and responsibilities — between the welfare of the individual and the group.

One chairperson tried. He read the notice and added he hoped all would be civil. Another said, "it says you have the right to speak, but nowhere does it say I have to listen. I'll tune back in when people stop shouting." Both comments comported with the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision which allowed rudeness but also said: "civility should be encouraged."

The decision does not eliminate other limits: speech is limited to being about an item on the agenda and being brief. If anyone goes on too long or speaks about something extraneous, the Chair has the right and responsibility to cut them off. Who speaks and for how long is in the hands of the Chair absolutely without debate.

If we worked together and fashioned our way — the Stockbridge way — what would we include and exclude from a meeting? What would we decide is good and what is unhelpful?

Perhaps we would start with the intention of public meeting to come together in goodwill, define, and solve our collective problems. While we all have individual concerns and vexations, the public meeting is probably not the place for personal grievances. Instead, it seems like the place for a generous attitude and cooler approach to our common needs — of Stockbridge itself.

We might agree the "gotcha" and the "gimme" are not helpful. We might concede the clever one-liner is not helpful in the face of complex issues. The catch phrase is fun but never caught more than momentary attention. It doesn't catch the answer to real problems. We might want to leave anything that stifles debate at the door because you never know whose two cents will move us forward. All that characterization of others' motives — that's no good, just makes everyone uncomfortable. Redefining an issue as having two irreconcilable sides won't help unless the goal is division and stagnation.

Ahead, we have serious business to conduct; behind, Stockbridge has almost 300 years of doing it well. We built a place that others want to come. Someone sneered and told me there is no Stockbridge exceptionalism. I disagree, but okay, if not, together, let's start now.

Carole Owens
Managing Editor

Photo: Xavier Letteron