You're both mistaken on the cause and impacts. The Natick policy and the Melrose SC policy (and nearly 98% of MA towns) is based off of the same Model Policies for Public Discourse (3rd Ed.) which contains provisions to limit speech in the event someone is 'improper' or 'abusive'. The Court found that the policy didn't adequately define these terms to include the general prohibitions of "obscenities","threats" or "fighting words." The quick fix will be to specifically define these terms, something the Model Policies for Public Discourse already has in draft form for its 4th Edition.
If you're being cut off at SC it is probably because you are rambling on without a concise thesis or demonstrable facts. That's an abuse of everyone's time...
Having stood behind "Free Speech at SC" at a prior meeting, I found the scent of his aftershave to be abusive to my nostrils! Just because they sell Old Spice for $2 per gallon doesn't mean you have to apply it with a paint brush. Clean it up, buddy.
Got the wrong person. I where English Leather,
Then yes voters for the override should have one speaker. Same thing over and over again by the same ten people. Why does nominee see that as a massive waste of time. Then it’s the same speech in the patch or on here.. same speeches as last time.. this town never changes. Demand this and demand that for no reason and think your the “cause” and the “right”. When everyone sees through the lies then Melrose might have a chance. So sad.