Category: First Amendment

The ACLU offers guidelines for how public officials can still maintain order

Despite a ruling by the state’s highest court that the Southborough select board violated a woman’s free speech rights by shutting her down after she referred to a member as a “Hitler,” local governmental bodies can still enforce rules of decorum — as long as it’s done in a content-neutral manner.

The ACLU of Massachusetts has sent a letter to the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association and the Massachusetts Association of School Committees offering guidance on how to proceed following the Supreme Judicial Court’s Barron v. Kolenda decision, which found that a local bylaw requiring “civility” violated both the state constitution and the First Amendment.

“We hope to work together to maintain peaceable and orderly meetings and to preserve constitutionally protected input by the public,” according to letter, signed by state ACLU executive director Carol Rose and senior and managing attorney Ruth A. Bourquin. The letter adds: “We understand that there is much to digest in the Court’s opinion and that some public bodies fear the decision will lead to disorderly public meetings. This fear is not warranted.”

The heart of the letter are 10 specific guidelines that local officials can follow in keeping unruly members of the public from getting out of hand. Some of them were outlined by the SJC itself — time limits for public comment and for individual speakers as well as rules that forbid speakers from interrupting each other. Some go beyond that. For instance, the letter says that rules preventing anyone from speaking unless recognized by the chair are lawful, as are limits to topics that are within the jurisdiction of the public body. Needless to say, anyone who threatens violence can be ordered to leave.

As someone who used to spend a considerable amount of time reporting on such meetings back, I think the ACLU’s guidelines contain a lot of common sense, and I hope local officials will take them to heart. Probably nothing could have prevented Louise Barron from calling Southborough select board member a “Hitler.” She was, after all, protesting what she regarded as the board’s violations of the state’s open meeting law, which is a legitimate topic. But if the board had rules in place stating that she couldn’t speak until recognized and was limited to five minutes, the damage would have been contained.

None of this should minimize how vile Barron’s comments were. Her behavior that night was loathsome. Frankly, even though the SJC made the correct decision, Barron should have apologized rather than filing a lawsuit to defend her own disgusting behavior.

You can read the ACLU’s full letter here.

The SJC’s ruling on civility was correct, but it’s unlikely to be the last word

The John Adams Courthouse, home to the Supreme Judicial Court. Photo (cc) 2008 by Swampyank.

The grotesque incivility of the age has caught up with local government. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that a bylaw in the town of Southborough that requires members of the public to act with “civility” when addressing officials was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution as well as the First Amendment.

It’s hard to disagree. In fact, three years ago I gave a New England Muzzle Award to the president of the town council in Exeter, Rhode Island, for sponsoring a rule requiring “decorum” from people who appear at public meetings. As I wrote for GBH News, “It should be possible to exercise some control over a public meeting without an ordinance that tramples on the First Amendment.”

I haven’t changed my mind, and I think the SJC did the right thing in ruling against Southborough officials. But wow. The unanimous decision, Barron v. Kolenda, was written by Justice Scott Kafker. Adam Gaffin, who covered the case for Universal Hub, reports:

At issue was a 2018 meeting of the town Select Board when the chairman cut short the regular public-comment period after a local gadfly, upset about both a potential tax increase and a state determination that the board had earlier and repeatedly violated the state Open Meeting Law, called the chairman “a Hitler” twice (to which he replied she was “disgusting”). He cited the town’s “civility” bylaw, which requires statements to be “respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal, or slanderous remarks” and which bars shouting and “inappropriate language.”

The SJC ruled that the select board had engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” on the grounds that favorable comments about the board would not have similarly been shot down. The court said that the wording of the bylaw goes well beyond the state constitution, which says only that the right of free speech must be exercised in “an orderly and peaceful manner.”

I could go on, but Adam’s got the story well covered, including lengthy excerpts from the SJC’s ruling. Jennifer Smith has a bit more at CommonWealth Magazine about what actually went down at the select board meeting. According to Smith, the resident in question, Louise Barron, accused town officials of “spending like drunken sailors” and held a sign; on one side was written “Stop Spending,” and the other proclaimed “Stop Breaking Open Meeting Law.” Smith continues:

Board member Daniel L. Kolenda interrupted, saying she [Barron] was starting to “slander” the town officials. He announced the public comment period would close and the board would go into recess, at which point an outraged Barron said, “Look, you need to stop being a Hitler.”

Kolenda ordered the hearing ended and cameras turned off, the SJC said. He began shouting at Barron that she was “disgusting” and he would have her “escorted out” of the meeting if she did not leave. She left and later brought suit, appealing to the high court after a lower court dismissed her claims.

The select board may control public participation to some extent, the SJC notes, by adopting “time, place, and manner restrictions” concerning the length of the public comment session, time limits for each speaker, and rules against disrupting other speakers. Because such TPM restrictions, as they are called, are viewpoint-neutral, they do not raise any constitutional issues. The Southborough ordinance, though, went well beyond that. Justice Kafker’s decision ends with this:

At a public comment session in a meeting of the board, a resident of the town thus clearly has the right to accurately complain about violations of law committed by town officials and object to other town actions, including its spending practices, and to express her views vehemently, critically, and personally to the government officials involved…. When a government official responds to a resident’s exercise of those rights by accusing her of slandering the board, screaming at her, and threatening her physical removal, it should be clear to him that his conduct is unlawful.

As I said, the SJC clearly got it right. Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement: “This is a major victory for free speech and participatory democracy.” But when I was regularly covering city council, select board and school committee meetings back in the 1980s, it would have been unthinkable for a member of the public to refer to a public official as “Hitler” — and, yes, there were obnoxious, uninformed members of the public back then, too. But there was also a certain level of propriety that everyone adhered to. It would have been inconceivable for anyone to invoke Hitler.

We are in a different world, now. The SJC ruling harks back to an earlier age, invoking both John Adams, for whom its gathering place is named, and Samuel Adams. Barron v. Kolenda is unlikely to be the last word on how members of the public may or may not behave in governmental forums, either in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

There may be less to the Florida blogger bill than meets the eye

Sen. Jason Brodeur

I want to question the prevailing wisdom about the so-called Florida blogger bill, which would require independent paid bloggers to register with the state if they write about top elected officials, including Gov. Ron DeSantis. The proposal has been described as an outrage against the First Amendment, with Noah Lanard of Mother Jones going so far as to say that the bill was inspired by Hungary’s right-wing authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán.

But what if there’s something else going on here? I was struck by this article in the Tampa Bay Times in which the sponsor of the measure, Republican state Sen. Jason Brodeur, compared bloggers to “lobbyists.” The bill would require bloggers to disclose who paid them for posts about elected officials and how much they received. Failure to comply could result in fines of $25 for every day they’re late, up to $2,500.

Brodeur would exempt bloggers for news organizations, and that may help explain his intent. Kirby Wilson, who interviewed Brodeur for the Times via text message, wrote that when he asked if the bill could cover journalists who write for digital-only outlets, Brodeur replied: “If they’re paid to advocate a position on behalf of a special interest, yes.”

It seems to me that what’s going on here is that Brodeur wants to require bloggers to disclose where they’re getting their money from if they’re being paid by political campaigns and other politically oriented organizations. This is not remarkable. By law, political campaigns and lobbyists must disclose their spending. A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission was threatening to go after food bloggers who were accepting freebies to write nice things without any disclosure.

Of note is that Jacob Ogles of the website Florida Politics forthrightly portrays Brodeur as targeting “pay-to-play blog posts” and quotes Brodeur as saying: “Paid bloggers are lobbyists who write instead of talk. They both are professional electioneers. If lobbyists have to register and report, why shouldn’t paid bloggers?”

Now, let’s be clear: Brodeur is no friend of the press. He recently filed a bill that would weaken libel protections for news organizations. And the blogger bill is apparently something of a mess, with Wilson observing that the actual language contains nothing that would protect independent bloggers who aren’t lobbying on behalf of a special interest. Brodeur hasn’t even been able to find a sponsor in the Florida House.

But there may be less here than meets the eye. After all, there’s a considerable distance between requiring lobbyists who blog to disclose their political activities and the repressive tactics of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by becoming a member of Media Nation for just $5 a month.

Why relevations that Fox stars knew Trump was lying may boost Dominion’s libel suit

Tucker Carlson. Photo (cc) 2018 by Gage Skidmore.

The reason that Sarah Palin lost her libel suit against The New York Times was that the Times’ extraordinarily sloppy editorial page editor, James Bennet, was extraordinarily sloppy. (In an unrelated matter, Bennet left the paper after it was revealed that he hadn’t even bothered to read an op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton suggesting that violent protesters be gunned down in the streets.)

Under the Supreme Court’s 1964 Times v. Sullivan standard, a public figure such as Palin can’t win a libel suit unless she can show that false, defamatory information about her was published with “actual malice” — that is, it was published in the full knowledge that it was false, or that the publication strongly suspected it was false.

That’s what makes the latest revelations in Dominion Voting Systems’ libel suit against Fox News so mind-boggling. As The New York Times reports, internal communications show that Fox stars such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham were fully aware that Donald Trump was lying about his claims that the 2020 election had been stolen. Yet they boosted those lies anyway, whose voting machines were a principal target of Trump and his allies. Dominion claims that Fox damaged its reputation and harmed its business.

As the Times story notes, Fox doubled down on the Trump camp’s claims after initially accepting his defeat — a move that resulted in many of its viewers shifting to even farther-right cable outlets like Newsmax and One America News. Fox wanted those viewers back, damn it. In a particularly revealing passage, we learn that Carlson wanted a Fox News journalist fired for tweeting the truth because it might harm Fox’s ratings:

On Nov. 12, in a text chain with Ms. Ingraham and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.

“Please get her fired,” Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.

Ironically, right-wing figures such as Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have all suggested that it might be time to get rid of the actual malice standard, which erects a nearly impossible barrier for public officials and public figures who want to sue media companies.

Under ordinary circumstances, Fox would be a prime beneficiary of that standard. Trouble is, the new revelations show that even Times v. Sullivan may prove insufficient to protect Fox from Dominion’s lawsuit. As Bill Grueskin of the Columbia Journalism School put it on Twitter:

Healey’s ambivalent stand on public records recalls her Muzzle Award-winning past

Gov. Maura Healey. Photo (cc) 2013 by ZGreenblatt.

Andrew Quemere, a journalist who doggedly follows open-government issues in Massachusetts at his newsletter, The Mass Dump, reports that newly minted Gov. Maura Healey may prove to be not quite the champion of Beacon Hill transparency that she claimed she would be.

No one should be too surprised — she is, after all, a two-time winner of the New England Muzzle Awards, a feature I wrote for 25 years for GBH News and, before that, The Boston Phoenix that tracked outrages against free speech. I’ll get to that. But first, the latest. Quemere’s item begins:

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey’s administration said Monday that it will not release records from past administrations. The decision means that a vast amount of vital information about state government — including former Governor Charlie Baker’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the repeated safety problems at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and the sprawling overtime-fraud scandal at the State Police — will remain secret.

Some background: Baker and previous governors declared that the state’s public records law did not cover either them or their immediate staff. Indeed, the notoriously weak law also doesn’t cover the legislative branch (see this 2020 report by Northeastern journalism students) or the judiciary, meaning that the only governmental groups that have to comply are cities, towns, the state’s executive agencies and quasi-independent authorities. (And county government, to the extent that we have county government, which we pretty much don’t.)

Healey told GBH News in December that she would end the exemption for her office — but then reversed herself, explaining, essentially, that she would take it on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the Healey administration refused to provide Quemere with records pertaining to police and law enforcement dating back to Baker’s time in office, saying that the new, more open policy she has adopted is not retroactive.

So: Healey’s new policy of openness does not cover previous administrations; and we’re not clear what the new policy really means.

As for the Muzzle Awards, the most pertinent is from 2018, when she was singled out for upholding rulings that public information should, in some cases, remain private. Healey’s secretive approach to the people’s business when she was the state attorney general was revealed by then-Boston Globe reporter Todd Wallack, now with WBUR Radio. As I wrote at the time:

Wallack’s most startling finding: Healey’s office had upheld a ruling by the Worcester district attorney that records pertaining to the 1951 murder of a state trooper should not be made public. Healey’s decision reversed a ruling by Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office and denied a friend of the murder victim the opportunity to follow up some leads on his own. The friend has since died.

Wallack documented numerous other examples of Healey’s penchant for siding with the secret-keepers, including her decision to appeal an order that the state police provide the Globe with dates of birth for state troopers. That would have made it possible for the paper to examine the driving records of officers who had been involved in motor-vehicle accidents. Robert Ambrogi, a First Amendment lawyer and the director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, told Wallack: “I would expect more based on the promises she has made about open government.”

Her previous Muzzle was less germaine: I criticized her in 2015 for filing a formal defense of “a 1946 state law criminalizing political lies aimed at influencing an election.” Go ahead. You tell me what what’s a lie, what’s a mistake and what’s political hyperbole. I wrote:

As the libertarian Cato Institute was quoted as saying in an article by the State House News Service, it can be “incredibly difficult to assess the truth of a politician’s claims, especially in the chaos of an election campaign.” A number of advocacy groups and media organizations opposed Healey, including the ACLU of Massachusetts and the New England First Amendment Coalition.

We live in a time of intense political polarization, but there is an issue that unites Democrats and Republicans: the intense desire to conduct the public’s business out of public view. Let’s hope that Gov. Healey’s first steps aren’t a sign of things to come.

Parents group says it’s against banning books, then calls for books to be banned

A Newburyport parents group denies it’s ever called for books to be banned, then immediately calls for the banning of books. From Jim Sullivan at The Daily News of Newburyport:

A spokesperson for Citizens For Responsible Education said in an email Monday that no member of the group has ever advocated for a book to be banned.

“We have made it crystal clear that sexually explicit books should not be made available on public school property or via the SORA app to minors. If a parent or child would like to purchase books such as ‘Gender Queer,’ ‘This Book is Gay,’ etc., with their own money, then so be it. There is zero educational value to these books and a waste of taxpayer dollars. In fact, giving a child instructions on how to hook up with an adult via a sex app is dangerous on its own merits,” the email reads.

I’m going to guess that no teenager lacks information on how to use a sex app.

Why it matters that The New York Times got it wrong on Section 230

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on two cases involving Section 230. Photo (cc) 2006 by OZinOH.

Way back in 1996, when Section 230 was enacted into law, it was designed to protect all web publishers, most definitely including newspapers, from being sued over third-party content posted in their comment sections. It would be another eight years before Facebook was launched, and longer than that before algorithms would be used to boost certain types of content.

But that didn’t stop David McCabe of The New York Times — who, we are told, “has reported for five years on the policy debate over online speech” — from including this howler in a story about two cases regarding Section 230 that are being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court:

While newspapers and magazines can be sued over what they publish, Section 230 shields online platforms from lawsuits over most content posted by their users.

No. I have to assume that McCabe and maybe even his editors know better, and that this was their inept way of summarizing the issue for a general readership. But it perpetuates the harmful and wrong notion that this is only about Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. It’s not. Newspapers and magazines are liable for everything they publish except third-party online comments, which means that they are treated exactly the same as the giant platforms.

Though it is true that an early case testing Section 230 involved comments posted at AOL rather than on a news website, the principle that online publishers can’t be held liable for what third parties post on their platforms is as valuable to, oh, let’s say The New York Times as it is to Facebook.

That’s not to say 230 can’t be reformed and restricted; and, as I wrote recently, it probably should be. But it’s important that the public understand exactly what’s at stake.

Muzzle follow-up: An Appeals Court panel doles out more pain for the city of Worcester

Worcester City Hall and Common. Photo (cc) 2015 by Destination Worcester.

For years, the city of Worcester withheld public records about police misconduct that had been sought by the local daily newspaper, the Telegram & Gazette. It’s already cost the hapless taxpayers big-time: Nearly a year ago, an outraged judge ruled against the city and awarded the T&G $101,000 to cover about half the cost of the newspaper’s legal fees. She also assessed the city $5,000 in punitive damages.

That outrageous misconduct, overseen by former city manager Edward Augustus, was the subject of a 2022 New England Muzzle Award, published by GBH News.

Now a three-judge panel of the state Appeals Court is asking a logical question: If the T&G was in the right and the city was in the wrong, why shouldn’t the newspaper be compensated for all or most of its legal fees rather than just half? This week that panel overturned the lower-court ruling and ordered Superior Court Judge Janet Kenton-Walker to consider increasing the legal fees she awarded, according to a report by the T&G’s Brad Petrishen, who first began seeking the records in 2018.

Petrishen quoted Associate Justice John Englander as saying: “At 10,000 feet, what happened here is the newspaper wanted to write about something and it took them three years to get the documents they wanted to write about.”

The proceedings have been followed closely by Andrew Quemere, a journalist who writes a newsletter on public records called The Mass Dump. Quemere published a detailed account this week that includes some particularly entertaining quotes from an exchange Justice Englander had with the city’s lawyer, Wendy Quinn, at oral arguments in December:

“What did the plaintiffs request or push for that they were wrong about?” Englander asked.

Quinn paused for about six seconds before asking Englander to clarify his question.

“What the heck did you spend three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting over if they should have gotten [the records]?” Englander asked. “If you had a defense, I’d like to understand what the defense was.”

As Quemere notes, Judge Kenton-Walker has consistently taken the position that the city not only erred and acted in bad faith, ordering that the city turn over the documents that the T&G had sought in June 2021 and then awarding $101,000 in legal fees in February 2022.

Even so, the newspaper appealed, seeking the full $217,000 it had paid — and, as the Appeals Court panel has now ruled, it may very well be entitled to that money. Jeffrey Pyle, a Boston-based First Amendment lawyer who represented the T&G, put it this way at the oral arguments: “To cut [the fees] by 54% sends a message to public records requesters: Don’t bother suing, you’re not going to be made whole even if you win and show that the other side acted in bad faith.”

To make matters worse for city officials, the Department of Justice last November announced that it had launched an investigation to determine whether the police department had used excessive force or engaged in discrimination on the basis of race or gender, although it is not clear whether DOJ was motivated by the T&G’s reporting.

I hope the T&G gets every last dime that it spent on this case. But I should add that the newspaper’s corporate chain owner, Gannett, deserves credit for pursuing this without any guarantee that it would ever be compensated. I criticize Gannett’s cost-cutting frequently in this space, but the company and its predecessor, GateHouse Media, have always been dedicated to fighting for open government, even if it means going to court. They could have told the T&G’s editors to forget about it, but they didn’t.

Finally, a disclosure: David Nordman, who was the T&G’s editor until this past summer, is now a colleague of mine at Northeastern. We work on opposite sides of the campus, literally and figuratively: he’s the executive editor of Northeastern Global News, part of the university’s communications operation, and I’m a faculty member at the School of Journalism.

Some common-sense ideas for reforming Section 230

Photo (cc) 2005 by mac jordan

The Elon Musk-ization of Twitter and the rise a Republican House controlled by its most extreme right-wing elements probably doom any chance for intelligent reform to Section 230. That’s the 1996 law that holds harmless any online publisher for third-party content posted on its site, whether it be a libelous comment on a newspaper’s website (one of the original concerns) or dangerous disinformation about vaccines on Facebook.

It is worth repeating for those who don’t understand the issues: a publisher is legally responsible for every piece of content — articles, advertisements, photos, cartoons, letters to the editor and the like — with the sole exception of third-party material posted online. The idea behind 230 was that it would be impossible to vet everything and that the growth of online media depended on an updated legal structure.

Over the years, as various bad actors have come along and abused Section 230, a number of ideas have emerged for curtailing it without doing away with it entirely. Some time back, I proposed that social media platforms that use algorithms to boost certain types of content should not enjoy any 230 protections — an admittedly blunt instrument that would pretty much destroy the platforms’ business model. My logic was that increased engagement is associated with content that makes you angry and upset, and that the platforms profit mightily by keeping your eyes glued to their site.

Now a couple of academics, Robert Kozinets and Jon Pfeiffer, have come along with a more subtle approach to Section 230 reform. Their proposal was first published in The Conversation, though I saw it at Nieman Lab. They offer what I think is a pretty brilliant analogy as to why certain types of third-party content don’t deserve protection:

One way to think of it is as a kind of “restaurant graffiti” law. If someone draws offensive graffiti, or exposes someone else’s private information and secret life, in the bathroom stall of a restaurant, the restaurant owner can’t be held responsible for it. There are no consequences for the owner. Roughly speaking, Section 230 extends the same lack of responsibility to the Yelps and YouTubes of the world.

But in a world where social media platforms stand to monetize and profit from the graffiti on their digital walls — which contains not just porn but also misinformation and hate speech — the absolutist stance that they have total protection and total legal “immunity” is untenable.

Kozinets and Pfeiffer offer three ideas that are worth reading in full. In summary, though, here is what they are proposing.

  • A “verification trigger,” which takes effect when a platform profits from bad speech — the idea I tried to get at with my proposal for removing protections for algorithmic boosting. Returning to the restaurant analogy, Kozinets and Pfeiffer write, “When a company monetizes content with misinformation, false claims, extremism or hate speech, it is not like the innocent owner of the bathroom wall. It is more like an artist who photographs the graffiti and then sells it at an art show.” They cite an extreme example: Elon Musk’s decision to sell blue-check verification, thus directly monetizing whatever falsehoods those with blue checks may choose to perpetrate.
  • “Transparent liability caps” that would “specify what constitutes misinformation, how social media platforms need to act, and the limits on how they can profit from it.” Platforms that violate those standards would lose 230 protections. We can only imagine what this would look like once Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz get hold of it, but, well, it’s a thought.
  • A system of “neutral arbitrators who would adjudicate claims involving individuals, public officials, private companies and the platform.” Kozinets and Pfeiffer call this “Twitter court,” and platforms that don’t play along could be sued for libel or invasion of privacy by aggrieved parties.

I wouldn’t expect any of these ideas to become law in the near or intermediate future. Currently, the law appears to be entirely up for grabs. For instance, last year a federal appeals court upheld a Texas law that forbids platforms from removing any third-party speech that’s based on viewpoint. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that could result in 230 being overturned in its entirety. Thus we may be heading toward a constitutionally untenable situation whereby tech companies could be held liable for content that the Texas law has forbidden them to remove.

Still, Kozinets and Pfeiffer have provided us with some useful ways of how we might reform Section 230 in order to protect online publishers without giving them carte blanche to profit from their own bad behavior.

N.H. publisher charged with running illegal ads closes two of her three newspapers

Londonderry (N.H.) Town Hall. Photo (cc) 2021 by Sdkb.

There’s been a sad development in the case of a New Hampshire newspaper publisher who was criminally charged with running political ads that did not include the required disclosure. Debra Paul announced last Friday that she and her husband, Chris Paul, are closing two of their three weekly newspapers, the Nutfield News and the Tri-Town Times. They will continue to publish the Londonderry Times. She wrote:

It’s been a good 18+ years, all things considered. Chris and I didn’t make millions, but we never expected to. I’ve never felt such delight as when people would come up and thank us, saying it seemed like “their” newspaper. Over the years we have come to know so many amazing people, some we call friends and hope to continue to keep even though we are not printing the paper.

The story of Paul’s arrest was reported last August by the investigative news organization InDepthNH. Paul published ads for political candidates that, in several instances, failed to include the words “Political Advertisement,” a violation of state law. No sentient being could possibly have thought the offending materials were anything other than political ads, but that didn’t stop the state attorney general’s office. At least in theory, Paul could be hit with a $2,000 fine or at least a year in prison.

It sounds like an outrageous breach of First Amendment protections, but the law isn’t necessarily unconstitutional because paid advertising does not enjoy the same protections as other forms of speech. In an odd twist, Debra Paul is also an elected member of Londonderry’s town council — an obvious conflict of interest for a newspaper, although that’s entirely unrelated to her arrest.

I could not find a follow-up, so I don’t know if this ridiculous case against Paul has been disposed of. But I’m going to try to find out.

Earlier: