Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. Allegations of hurt feelings, real or spurious, do not justify censorship of public speech,” the lawsuit affirms, noting the famed U.S. “The government may not silence speech because it criticizes government officials or employees, or their favorite ideas or initiatives, even if that speech does so in ways that many people may find unpleasant. The lawsuit presents the argument that the district’s editing of public comments and termination of comments by Abrams, Daly, Campbell, and Marshall was due to the viewpoints of the men. “When Defendants enforce the practice, each instance of enforcement constitutes an invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy, and controversial matters weighs upon their decisions to speak about,” the lawsuit states.
The board is additionally accused of strictly enforcing a requirement for public speakers to list their home addresses at some meetings, while only requiring the municipality of residence at other meetings. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs “fear” their speeches might be edited from future board recordings and that the district could subject the men to “negative attention from law enforcement or limit their access to Pennsbury property.” The complaint calls out Gibson as the “prime ringleader,” the attorneys for “advocating” for censorship, and the school board members and district staff for allowing it to happen. “Each individually-named defendant has either perpetuated the censorship of Plaintiffs’ speech, personally directed that censorship, or exhibited actual knowledge of and acquiescence in the censorship,” the lawsuit claims.
0 kommentar(er)
