1 week Ago
IN Paul Feely’s City Hall column last week are remarks from the New England First Amendment Coalition suggesting that the “F” word and other vulgarity or profanity should be allowed during public sessions of the Board of Mayor and Alderman. Their premise would suggest I do not need to use “F” to discuss this in my writing here but rather should use the word itself and anytime I see fit. But I highly doubt the New Hampshire Union Leader nor any other legitimate print media plans to allow the “F” word or any such unnecessarily vulgar language.
Mark Hayward, a former Union Leader reporter, in response to the New England First Amendment Coalition’s suggestion, claimed that Rule 3 of the Board of Mayor and Alderman had “shortcomings” and said it should be removed to “strengthen the public-participation process.” Hayward wrote numerous articles for the Union Leader over the course of his career, I would suggest that profanity was never a part of his comments. Why not? Perhaps he would have found himself on the unemployment line.
Readers would have been outraged and I assume his editors would have been as well. Would Hayward have been protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, had he? Perhaps, but this isn’t a debate on all the First Amendment clauses. The suggestion that vulgarity and profanity strengthen the public participation process is ludicrous.
The idea of removing Rule 3 relating to vulgarity, profanity, threats or fighting words would create a complete disregard for the rules of conduct at public hearings. I am not a prude. I’ve been known to throw the “F” bomb as well as anyone.
My late father would suggest people only use vulgarity because they lack the intelligence to use correct language. Today, the “F” word has become commonplace; however, it is still offensive to most of us in many instances. One can only imagine the path these public meetings would take if Rule 3 were removed.
Today’s society has seen a reduction in dress codes, accountability, work ethic, courtesy and civility to authority, including teachers and police. In many instances we are drastically going in the wrong direction. To suggest that courtesy, civility, politeness and respect be removed from the Board of Mayor and Alderman’s public session is opening a can of worms that will result in complete disruption and uncalled for language at future meetings.
Agitators will use these forums as a free for all to create unfathomable chaos. This isn’t a debate about the First Amendment, but a debate on keeping public decency and respect at the forefront of the public’s right to address their local representatives. If Rule 3 is removed, where does the language stop? Are we going to now watch our representatives use language of their choice when they disagree with other board members? I would suggest not.
They remain professional and courteous to one another despite their sometimes differences of opinion. The U.S.
Constitution is a sacred document and its language designed by the founding fathers is what makes America the country it is. We won’t debate that, but to suggest it is a “no holds barred” document to create a free-for-all is not the intent of the founding fathers of this country. Keep Rule 3 intact! If you don’t, your only response at future public comment sessions will be “WTF”! I do not think that is the path we want to take.
.
