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...
Not to correct you Legal Beagle, but the cause and impacts were indicated in the initial post. Melrose has exactly the same issues as Natick SC had in their policy and the way it was used by the SC chair to shut down free speech and critics of the school committee and school administration. Also, the SC chair is not permitted to cut you off simply because you are "rambling on without a concise thesis or demonstrable facts" which is actually a behavior more typical of the SC chair herself.
The stubbornness of the SC chair, superintendent and their legal counsel in continually refusing to abide by the rule of law, even when called out on it by our more astute citizens, has cost Melrose taxpayers hundreds and thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, over the last several years and surely even more into the future.