Posted on 05/30/2005 6:29:47 AM PDT by A. Pole
Thursday night the Board of Selectmen voted and approved a measure to keep outspoken critics of illegal immigration from airing their concerns during the Citizen's Participation segment of the selectmen meetings.
Joseph and Jim Rizoli periodically have brought to the attention of the board of selectmen the issue of how illegal immigration has negatively affected the schools and hospitals in Framingham, a town where as much as 70% of the estimated 20,000 recent immigrants from Latin American countries are here illegally. For airing their concerns, they have been labelled as "haters" and "xenophobes".
During the Thursday night meeting, the Rizoli's had other items on the agenda, but Katie Murphy, chairwoman for the Selectmen, refused to recognize them. Murphy has said that she did not consider illegal immigration a problem, and that the Rizoli's "almost 100 percent of the time [they bring] up nothing that is within the purview of the Board of Selectmen."
The Rizoli's also broadcast their issues on a local access cable program, part of which includes footage from their discussions before the selectmen. Before the new rules limiting speech at the selectmen meetings went into effect, Murphy stated "'A certain segment of the population has had the public airwaves for actually far too long."
================================
Boston Globe story excerpts:
Board's rules aim to limit comments
By Lisa Kocian, May 26, 2005
[...]
''It's not a First Amendment right to harangue or go on forever or waste people's time, so whoever is in charge of the meeting has the right to make sure it's carried out expeditiously," she said in a phone interview.
[...]
''I wasn't about to get into a shouting match with them on the air," Murphy said afterward. ''If they actually refused to stop speaking, we could have them removed and carry on with our work." The Rizolis eventually quieted down. Murphy said she does not expect police presence to become a regular part of the meeting.
[...]
Crimaliens bump!
'First Amendment for me, not for thee...' said KKK Byrd.. or Kennedy....
Let me guess; the fascists are dems.
Let me get this straight...it's against the law there to complain about something that is illegal? I don't get it. What has happened to this country?
HA!..You can alway "figure out" what a 'rat, really believes in, by observing what they accuses others of doing.
"Citizen's Participation segment"
Rule #1. Only citizens in agreement with the selectmen may participate.
If these people speaking out are truly citizens, and aren't using profane or abusive or threatening language, then the selectman have no leg to stand on, if they're going to continue to have a "citizen participation segment."
It's laughable.
Well then.
Speak to them in a language they can understand.
Sue them and a collective, and sue them individually for civil rights violations.
The government can regulate the time, place and manner of speach, but this statement makes it clear that the intent here is to regulate the content of speech: ''A certain segment of the population has had the public airwaves for actually far too long," Of course the ACLU stands up for the censors in this case!
>> Let me get this straight...it's against the law there to complain about something that is illegal? I don't get it. What has happened to this country?
It is Massachusetts, not America.
Most local governments here are controlled by elitist lunatics, and we apparently like it just fine that way.
The democrats sold it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.