Two ejected from City Council meeting after starting to yell about Wu and Covid-19 or something
The City Council returned to its chamber for an in-person meeting today, during which Council President Ed Flynn ordered two people removed after they began yelling as City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo was discussing a proposed ordinance to ban loud protests at specific people's houses between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.
After Arroyo, who chaired a hearing on the proposal on Monday, rose to discuss the issue, a woman sitting behind him began waving a tiny American flag. And then she started shouting something about the proposal, which arose from the bucket-banging people outside Mayor Wu's Roslindale home about how she's a child abuser and serial killer, among other things, over Covid-19 regulations.
Flynn, who had opened the council's meeting by warning against outbursts, ordered her removed from the chambers. Arroyo began speaking again. A man started shouting. Flynn ordered him removed as well.
Arroyo then said he would not seek council action on the measure just yet because his committee wants to hear from Boston Police and the city law department - neither of which sent representatives to Monday's hearing - first.
Arroyo added he felt compelled to address certain "misinformation" that had somehow come out of Monday's hearing.
"The Covid-19 virus is real, it is not a hoax," he said.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
I would like to see a video
I would like to see a video of the ordeal
Here ya go
For what it's worth: This was not discrimination against these particular people. The way the council has long done things, whether it's right or not, is that the public is not allowed to speak at its Wednesday voting sessions. Instead, they are allowed to testify, in sessions that sometimes go on for hours, before council committees that are considering whatever the matter up for a vote is. Arroyo chaired a hearing on the matter on Monday (as linked in the original post); the racists and Covid deniers had their chance to speak then. Even the Grand Dame of Hate herself, Dianna Ploss from Gloucester, was given her chance to speak.
Damn shame they didn't show the ejections though.
can’t self-select themselves out of the gene pool fast enough.
May not be genetic
Might be the result of undiagnosed childhood lead poisoning.
That woman looks neurologically off - somehow. Mask like crazy face. When you make Larouchies and Scientologists look sane ...
Is it common epidemiological practice to draw medical conclusions from grainy CCTV screengrabs?
Grainy or not you can still
Grainy or not you can still see the entitled crazy Karen waving her 'Merica flag made in China.
This is out of bounds. But low blows are de rigeur
I was being polite
She looks completely psychotic batshit crazy if you watch the video.
Is it just me or do they all kind of have that same slightly glassed over look/slightly inbred or something? It's tough for me to articulate the look, but, most times it's easy to pick out the crazy anti-mask/vaxxer/q-anon/MAGA'r/whatever in the photo.
It's the bat-sh*t stuff that I just don't get
OK, you don't like a policy and you show up to protest. I get that. But where is all this "child abuser/serial killer" nonsense coming from? What is WRONG with people?
They've been brainwashed by the right wing media / internet to think that anyone further left than Ted Cruz is a child molester. It's not mental illness, it's the gullibility of the human race and the increasing willingness of the right wing to abandon all pretensions to civility and exploit that gullibility by any means necessary.
It's also terrifying and it's going to continue the increase in violent lawlessness on the right, if your enemies are the most evil thing you can think of, why wouldn't you keep them from voting, run them off the road, or even shoot them?
Kind of it.
Mass media is a huge problem but this is hardly a new thing.
Never mind stuff like the Holocaust, look at what happened in Indonesia, Rwanda, Armenia, etc... Once you don't see your opponents as fellow humans, all bets are off.
Case in Point
How could you support ANYTHING a person writes after they publish this sentence….
But, as Ohio State law professor and sentencing policy expert Douglas Berman writes, “the federal sentencing guidelines for” child pornography offenders “are widely recognized as dysfunctional and unduly severe.”
You might as well go post elsewhere and support the child porn collecting cop.
Here’s another winner from your source at Vox
So, while Hawley is technically telling the truth when he says that Jackson “deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines” when sentencing child pornography offenders, so do most federal judges.
Really? The everyone else does it too line? Shameful.
Thank You For Proving My Point
I posted an article about republicans dishonestly tarring a judge as being pro-child pornography and you accuse ME of being pro-child porn collecting cop.
Responding to you from other thread
The entire Vox article is a long winded attempt to downplay sexual abuse against children, even going as far as saying an 18 year old (who also attempted to distribute) doing it is not so bad because it is a way for him to “explore his curiosity about homosexual activity.” It also says the senator’s accusations are true several times.
Here are exact quotes:
So, while Hawley is technically telling the truth when he says that Jackson “deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines” when sentencing child pornography offenders, so do most federal judges.
The third prong of Hawley’s attack on Jackson appears to be literally true,
Jackson did, indeed, sentence these seven offenders to less time in prison than these sentencing guidelines recommend,
All parts of the legal system are failing children when it comes keeping them safe from sexual predators. I think we both at least agree that it is a tremendous problem that is not going away without re-examining the issue. I don’t care about your politics or those bringing the topic to light. Please do some reading, look beyond the politics, and see it for the issue that it is.
There are countless articles on this and weak sentencing is not a way to deter future crimes.
It’s complete and utter bullshit that the article is downplaying sexual abuse against children. Your attacks are dangerous in tenor and beneath the bar of civil discourse.
We can agree to disagree. You posted a horrid article and I responded with an entirely different interpretation than what you came way with after reading it. The author makes many statements to downplay the severity of abusing children and I think it is awful.
The courts cannot keep
The courts cannot keep children safe from abuse. Severe sentences don't reduce child abuse. Evidence based sentencing does not downplay the severity of child abuse. You are pretending that talking tough keeps children safe, its fake. You know nothing about the topic.
I wish that were true
I wish I wasn’t preyed upon by a trusted adult as child, I wish my good friend growing up wasn’t molested repeatedly as a small child, I wish the stories I have heard from friends, family, and loved ones weren’t true, I wish I hadn’t been preyed on as a college freshman by a trusted professor who owned photos of nude underaged people, I wish that the people that suffered some of the worst atrocities could know their attackers were unable to do that to someone else ever again.
I take these crimes seriously and there is nothing fake about what I am saying. It is a national and global crisis that is currently thriving more than ever because of the internet and a lack of public accountability.
“The problem is not going away,” said Hockwater. “It’s become easier for offenders to victimize kids.”
I am not disputing your experience. I am saying that longer prison sentences that are based superficial appearance instead of evidence do not prevent abuse. It is not true that it is easier for offenders to victimize kids.
And provide evidence that “it is not easier for offenders to victimize kids.”
I am aware of the ongoing debate around prison sentencing and deterrence and the need for better therapy in the rehabilitation of criminals. That does not mean we should be letting improperly rehabilitated abusers of children out of jail early, especially when they are likely to reoffend. Courts absolutely keep both children and adults safe by removing dangerous people from society. At the same time, much more work is to be done with rehab and therapy during prison time because simply locking someone up usually doesn’t fix the problem.
You’re welcome to disagree with the quote from the FBI agent who spent their life in this field, but at least provide evidence, otherwise it is actually you who are being dishonest. Most child predators don’t even get caught. Again, please explain how the internet has not made it easier for “offenders” to victimize children because it is something I would also love to believe. I think the increased time online during the pandemic proves this theory wrong.
All you have to do is stop
All you have to do is stop cherry picking research that agree with your emotions.
Then show me evidence
Show me the evidence then. You have done nothing to prove what you say is true. This has nothing to do with emotions. Facts matter. Sorry. Provide facts. The question still stands.
I have linked several times to The NY Times. By your definition, that is cherry picking research. I think many would disagree with that assessment.
The NY Times is behind a
The NY Times is behind a paywall, But the articles I have been able to look at are not related to your claims. Showing that more child porn is reported does not prove more children are being hurt. You have posted nothing close to showing that harsh sentences reduce child abuse.
And again, when you demand that I provide proof you are pantomiming Troll 101. But since I cannot disprove something that you never actually show it is an endless circle.
Did you click the first NY Times link?
Here it is again:
There is no paywall. You should click it and see the scope of the problem you seem to know so much about. For the second one, just read the headline. This article as well:
“Tips to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the clearinghouse for such information in the United States, nearly doubled from 6.3 million in the first half of 2019 to 12 million through June of this year. Reports of online enticement similarly spiked during that timeframe, from 6,863 to 13,268.”
This report states that beyond building public awareness, prevention, and treatment, the reason for the decline of child sexual abuse in the 90’s was because “A large number of offenders have been incarcerated (Beck et al., 1993).”
“Whereas around 10,000 reports of OSEC per year were made at the turn of the century, 18.4 million reports of new OSEC material, or child sexual exploitation material (CSEM), were made in 2018 alone (2018 NCMEC 2019, 5- 6). “
“The introduction of the internet to the public in 1993 and its subsequent incorporation of video and photo technology have directly influenced both the development and increase of online sexual exploitation of children.”
I said weak sentencing will not deter future crimes against children and you called me fake and said I know nothing on the topic.
You’re also the one that said “courts can’t keep children safe” and “It is not true that it is easier for offenders to victimize kids.”
I have provided many links to reasonable sources and you have done nothing to prove your above statements are true. What you say is false and just as Pete can say that what I say is dangerous, I believe what you have said is dangerous…to children of all people.
It would be nice if we could be discussing how little federal money is implemented into protecting children but we couldn’t even get there because the line “weak sentencing is not a way to deter future crimes” triggered you and you felt the need to immediately go on the offensive.
Feel free to write me off as a troll all you want. If you’re going to call me a troll for providing evidence, what does that make someone who goes around accusing people they know nothing about certain topics, do nothing to back up their statements, and resort to name calling?
if it walks like a troll and talks like a troll then...
Again your assertions don't match what your links say.
The complaint was not whether people sending child porn were incarcerated it was whether our new supreme court justice incarcerated them long enough. But none of your reasonable sources cover that fine point. None of your sources cover whether increased reporting equals increased victimization.
This is a complicated issue. The attack is dishonest. Just because a person can see the complexities, doesn't mean they are supporting pedophiles.
You’re blinded by politics
There is nothing wrong with questioning previous decisions made by a potential supreme court justice and how they relate to the overall judicial system. It seems people care more about getting “their side” into power than actually looking at the issues at hand.
I actually have provided links that back up exactly what I say, even including quotes from published news articles and universities. You have done nothing to back up your own assertions. All you can do is call me a troll.
Yes, seeing complexities in an issue does not mean a person supports one thing or another, just as simply calling a person a troll, in an effort to prove yourself correct, is not a valid debate. Thinking either way is extreme.
What I said to Pete was simply pointing out the absurdity of the article he linked and that it may be more related elsewhere if he really wanted to bring up this issue. I wasn’t actually calling him a name or accusing him of anything. He took that upon himself.
So how long should this guy go to jail for in your book? I’m sure he never used the internet to gain access to his victims, according to you. In all reality, he very likely did/does prey on children both online and in public. Your rhetoric is dangerous.
troll tip #3 projecting
There is nothing wrong with questioning a supreme court justice, but it is political to only do it when the cameral is on after you voted for her the year before.
There is no case here where the defendant did not get jail time. Her sentences have no statistical difference with other jurists. This is a fake issue.
You’re okay with weak sentencing for pedophiles and blinded by politics, while refusing to acknowledge a real world issue.
rinse and repeat Troll tip #4
The sentences were not weak. Your links are unrelated to your claims. Only trolls start their comments with "Got it"
You have still provided nothing
You can go back to your echo chamber now. You are still providing nothing but your opinions. I have provided quotes from many sources backing me up. This conversation is clearly useless at this point, especially if you’re okay with weak sentencing for sexual violence against children.
The best you can do now is redefine the word “weak.” Nothing but nonsense from you.
troll trip #5 repeat buzzwords and lie about your own comments
Your sources don't support your claims. Your opinion that our new supreme court justice is soft on pedophiles is not part of the information contained in any of your plethora of links. You don't even seem to understand what you are complaining about.
You’re still missing the point
And aren’t seeing past the politics.
I complained about the entire legal system (not just this single judge) regarding this matter. I pointed this out through the absurdity of the “everyone else does it too” argument in the Vox article and how that is a shameful defense.
You then made these dangerous statements and provided zero sources to back up your claims.
“Courts cannot keep children safe”
“Severe sentences don’t reduce child abuse”
“It is not true that it is easier for offenders to victimize kids.”
You even went as far as making the dangerous assumption that the incredible rise in internet child pornography does not create a demand for more victims. That is nothing more than your horrific opinion and it is false.
I backed up every single thing I said with sources and you either didn’t read them or are choosing to misread them. Read it all again if you still can’t figure it out. I even gave you quotes.
I was willing to discuss the effectiveness of crime deterrence through prison sentencing with you, but all you could do was call me a troll and dole out divisive opinions.
I’m done responding to you. You can have the last word, which I’m sure you’ll say makes me a troll.
Did you read your sources? they don't back up your claims.
So the reason that you can't but quotes around the 4th thing that you accuse me of saying is the I never said that. I stand by the other 3.
Your so called sources don't connect your far flung dots. For instance you state that offending went down in the 90's because the perps were locked up. But that doesn't prove that longer sentences are needed. It's like saying covid vaccines work so we should take monthly booster shots, and anyone against monthly boosters is anti-vax and therefore pro-elder abuse.
Because you asked for it
Here it is, your exact quote:
“Showing that more child porn is reported does not prove more children are being hurt.”
That is what I said and true
This is what you claimed I said
It is not an assumption or an opinion. It is pointing out that your sources don't represent your claims. Did you read the articles that you linked? Are you lying about what the articles prove or is your reading comprehension poor?
If it is not your opinion
THEN PROVIDE A SOURCE
My links provided supporting statements and you have chosen to remain willfully ignorant. You have provided NOTHING but your dangerous opinions.
Your links do not provide supporting statements
It seem you are projecting again. The titles of your articles share the general subject but they don't prove or even agree with your assertions. Sentencing is complicated. It is dishonest to accuse a judge that locked up pedofiles as not caring about child sexual abuse. It is dishonest to throw around that accusation at all the people that disagree with you.
Hyperbole is in vogue nowadays
Just opposing the policies of a politician, or the politician, is not good enough. Policies or politicians must also be compared to fascists, communists, white supremacists, and the like.
That said, I do often ask that key question, "what is wrong with people?"
The Ten Rules of Hate
What you have mentioned is #8 on writer Matt Taibbi's "The Media's Ten Rules of Hate", which is well worth reading. Look it up. #8 is "the other side is literally Hitler".
Kind of funny considering someone who links to a Howie Carr piece full of hyperbole and attacks against entire groups of people and politicians and defends it. Then again, Howie and right-wing media, in general, has been doing this for decades back to the rise of right-wing AM talk radio and demonetization of anyone or group with opposing views. That said - it is usually fair game to call politicians out as white supremacists if they say white supremacists things or associate with white supremacist groups. Same with communists, although I fail to see how a belief in a system of economics is equitable with the belief that other races are inferior and lesser humans, and should be removed/excluded (or worse) from the country and citizenship.
I’ve hit a raw nerve with you.
I guess Carr is part of the problem, as are some commenters here.
Time to Fix This
Some of this is reaching proportions that suggests that this is not just a protest. There seems to be enough of this to warrant an examination of people's mental capacity. Some of these people are showing up at many of these protests and other outburst sessions. Indeed that blondie has been at Wu's house regularly.
Freedom of speech is important but the untruths that these people are spouting suggest a serious mental flaw, not to mention the seeking-out of negative attention.
Maybe a couple of them need to be arrested and sent to Bridgewater for a 10-day observation to see if they are in fact competent or not. Delusions are one thing but when left unchecked and not treated it can eventually expand in some people to self-harm or harm of others.
I think we also need to start looking at these untruths that they have been convinced to be real, and try to trace back where they are coming from. Sure... some of it is from the loose nut cases out there but just how much of that is coming from foreign influence trying to destabilize our society. Interesting that this all started to erupt during the end of the Trump administration and has gotten worse as Putin invades Ukraine. Is the timing such that it is trying to destabilize the decision-makers in government at multiple levels at once.
Indeed the mask policy has been dropped and yet the wingdings are still in front of Wu's house. This is no longer a vax or mask issue but one of racism and misogyny.
You're right, when there were mask and vax mandates, they had a inch of good reason to do this. Now.. they are nutters.
And yeah I think we do need to figure out where they are getting it from. But I think its Q, social media, and Fox News. It really makes me wonder if FoxNews was shutdown, what would happen. Would it cause a moment of clarity? (nah, they are too far gone)
But yeah I think its time to start to pull these people in for evals.They can scream "1st amendment" all they want.. but at this point, it's gonna be 'for what?". They have nothing, so 1st doesn't apply. Combined with not being able to control yourself, outbursts, and just general spewing of misinformation should be enough to tip this toward a mental health reason vs a 1st amendment one.
Let's revisit this in six months if these folks are still doing this... Im gonna guess yeah they probably will be.
A lot of them have actually
A lot of them have actually quit watching fox at this point - too liberal for their tastes. Online "news" networks have replaced it.
For the record...
Bridgewater only houses men. Someone who is female (natal sex or gender) would not be sent there.
This sure isn't my field, but I've done a lot of reading in the past few years in an attempt to understand it -- and in so doing, I've run across the works of those who have been analyzing it since well before most of us started to notice it. More on that later.
What's producing this obvious disconnect with reality is not simply mental instability, and it's not simply foreign influence and disinformation. I think it's a combination of a certain mindset or mental tendencies, and a deliberate (if often uncoordinated) effort to create a slippery slope of unreality. Disinformation exists along a spectrum, from "untrue but plausible" to "absolutely blatant bullshit that no one with two marbles to knock together would believe". So, if you come right out the gate with something that's in the latter category, it will clash with what the average person knows or reasonably believes to be true. Moreover, it will clash without undermining existing knowledge or belief. It will disagree with observable fact, it will offer no sensible arguments to counter observable fact, and so anyone who's compos mentis is going to discard this disinformation out of hand, as absurd and not credible.
But what happens if you start off with something at the other end of the disinformation spectrum? It's just as untrue, but it is plausible: for example, "President Biden wore a green tie in his press conference on January 11", vs. "President Biden eats babies for breakfast and throws the bones to his pet hyenas whose feces fertilize the White House rose gardens." If you're not crazy, you will immediately discard the latter as absurd, even if you don't personally have knowledge of contradictory facts ("I know that's not true because I had breakfast with President Biden yesterday and he ate cornflakes."). But you don't have to be crazy to believe the former example -- and if someone says it just like that, you're probably going to accept it. Why not? Wearing a green tie has no particular implications (although a tan suit, well...we won't go there).
Now take it a step further: President Biden wore a union pin on his lapel in his press conference on January 11. OK, again, most people will believe it -- but unlike a green tie, a union pin has a bit of a charge. Now make it a BLM pin. Now he called Congressional Republicans "traitors". Now he's proposing legislation to restrict gun ownership nationwide. Now he's planning an executive order if he doesn't get the legislation. Now he's going to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the order. Now he has plans to round up anyone who was fool enough to register their guns. It's all boiling the frog, sliding down the slippery slope, and there are some factors that work against the process and others that accelerate it. And the more you go down the slope, the harder it is to break free of the cascade of beliefs that it took to get you there. At every step you buy into something, you accept something as truth, and of course that is enabled by skillful disinformation that projects an authoritative, credible aura, and that is distributed in such a way as to appear to be coming from many sources at once, when it's really a single source reverberating through many echoes.
I know people who have bought into some real down-home nonsense, and I can attest that in those cases, it was not stupidity, it was not ignorance in the strict sense, and it was certainly not mental illness. It was definitely a slippery slope, aided by disinformation and enabled by an absence of tools to counter the trend. For example, I know one man who is quite intelligent, and quite well-traveled - he's backpacked in many different countries, and not the standard gap-year destinations either. But he didn't have a great formal education, and as a result he didn't get exposure to sufficient facts, historical knowledge, and critical thinking processes to tell certain kinds of bullshit from truth. He shared a dogwhistle meme once, that made reference to bankers and Rothschilds, and when I attempted to gently explain that this was an antisemitic trope, he blew up with I AM NOT AN ANTISEMITE. OK, maybe not, but his education didn't teach him about the whole "Jewish banker" canard, so him didn't smell it when it passed right under his nose. His education didn't teach him that conspiracies such as this meme proposed are vanishingly unlikely. It didn't teach him about what sources can be trusted and how to evaluate information critically. So, he bought this, not as a conscious, self-aware antisemite would, but as someone who was convinced that he was not antisemitic, and yet was accepting and promoting an antisemitic meme.
So my friend, and many others in our country, are less well-equipped than they need to be to resist the nudges down the slippery slope. I am no sort of a mental health professional, and so I won't even begin to speculate on whether this progression leads to mental illness. It certainly does not help, though, if a person is already so disposed.
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner shot Gabby Giffords (and a bunch of other people), I read an article by a clinician who specializes in treating people diagnosed as paranoid. He wasn't attempting to diagnose Loughner, but he pointed out that effective treatments for paranoid people rely on the clinician insisting on the facts, and refusing to acquiesce or enable the patient's delusions. Constant and repeated grounding in reality, he said, was necessary for treatment -- so when the social climate increasingly veers off the reality axis and amplifies counterfactual narratives, it's an uphill battle to keep a person with paranoid tendencies from succumbing to these delusions.
This was in 2011, mind you.
So, I don't know that the distinction matters in practice, but my sense is that it's not a matter of a "serious mental flaw" so much as a disinformation process aimed at detaching people from reality, which will of course most easily affect those who are are most predisposed, and those who are least capable by lack of reasoning skills to offer themselves a compelling alternative.
I will readily accept any and all reprimands from mental health practitioners for veering out of my lane on this one -- but please, if you think I'm wrong, tell me how.
In re: my earlier reference to those who have been studying this for a long time, Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" -- "paranoid" not in the clinical sense, but "simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind...I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." This essay was written in 1964. It could have been written last week.
Meanwhile in reality
The media admits to lying to the American public to get a certain politician elected as President of the United States. Keep using more words and maybe you will see the truth someday.
Did the media lie or did you not understand their words?
I don't remember anyone claiming the laptop did not exist. Neither of these link show that Hunter Biden was guilty of anything. He acknowledged being investigated by the IRS. He paid the IRS a million the next year. That's a settlement, not a conviction. The FBI did not subpoena the laptop, the computer repair guy gave it to them. There are no lies or crimes there.
Let's see some ID
If these people aren't Boston residents, don't let them into city council chambers. Sure, we have a lot of crazies here but some of these people don't live here.
I'll say "absolutely not" to
I'll say "absolutely not" to this proposal. Violates people's rights, while also not solving the problem it's intended to solve.
Requiring ID to enter City Hall would come with a whole new …
… set of contradictions and complications.
I live in Somerville and have been in Boston City Hall
and its council chambers. Not to protest, just to watch some public hearing, years ago, on a topic that I no longer remember. Everyone has the right to do that.
There are also art galleries, registries, tax offices, and other things that a non-Boston resident may want or need to visit.
Do you have a right to our city government just on a whim?
I was mostly kidding but if you don't have business before the city of Boston government, why should you have a right to access if you don't live or work here? It's not your government. It would be impossible to regulate given how many people work here but there's a huge, huge difference between 'I get to visit Boston freely' and 'I get to watch Boston city government work because I want to' IMO.
Depends on the topic perhaps?
I don't think the public hearing was about bike lanes, but if it was, and it was about a road where I commonly ride, I think I have a right to attend the hearing and participate in the public comment period.
Also, many people own businesses or property in Boston who don't live in Boston, so they all have some legitimate interest in Boston city government, even though they don't vote in Boston.
You might not get a vote, however
People who work in the city or otherwise have an interest in what happens in Boston have the right to make comments at the allotted times.
The council can disregard their comments but given the city *wants* visitors and businesses, the views of these groups are not unimportant.
Same with Political Donations?
Because there are a lot of out-of-town dollars being given to candidates for mayor, district attorney, and governor by people who don't live, work, or visit here, and the argument against that phenomenon is at least as strong as yours. (I understand both but don't support either, FWIW.)
American tourists can go watch Prime Ministers Questions in Parliament
every Wednesday. Should it really be harder for someone from Quincy to see Ed Flynn working than it is to see Boris Johnson?
You would, even if only mostly joking, object to an out of towner simply sitting in one of the generally empty seats in the council chamber? It's not like Ron's impersonating a Boston city councilor and voting on the police budget or whatever (and I know about stuff like that - when I covered the then little paranoid town of Stow, MA, they had me and any other reporters unfortunate enough to be assigned to cover their town meetings sit up front with the town moderator so the whole town could keep an eye on us to make sure we didn't try to secretly vote on town matters).
For what it's worth, the Boston City Council regularly allows out of towners to testify even on matters - as recently as Monday, when out of towners got to spew their hatred for Michelle Wu during a hearing on the proposal at issue here.
That would probably open huge can of Constitutional worms. It's a public hearing in a space open to the general public for that reason. It must remain open to anyone, regardless of residency. Just as localities can not restrict access to public ways, publicly owned open space, and parks, etc. to residents only, they can't restrict access to public hearings and meetings to residents only either.
If I were on the Supreme
If I were on the Supreme Court, that would be the way it worked. Unfortunately there are plenty of public parks that are restricted to residents only, especially beaches and ponds.
Do you have any examples of this? They can restrict parking to residents (that falls under a different use category regarding facilities), but municipalities can not restrict access to public land to residents only. Doing so will jeopardize state and federal grant funding and open municipalities to civil rights liabilities, not to mention, under several public land use doctrines, the state and/or municipalities do not own parks or conservation areas, etc, just as they do not own most roadways, rather they are public spaces and hold them in trust. Ownership of all park and public open space (IE conservation land, town forests, etc) belongs to the general public, and the general public has right to access and enjoy its land. When I was a state park ranger in the late 1990s, this fact was repeatedly stressed to us in training.
Medford has one
Wright's Pond, during the summer swimming season, is limited to Medford residents, though they can bring guests. This is not just the parking lot, but also covers walk-ins.
I believe the same is true for the Arlington Reservoir swimming area (which is partially in Lexington)
I don't know the setup there...
...and I'm speculating, but the beach at Wright's Pond may be considered a recreational facility and local governments may have a more leeway over access to certain facilities, and perhaps the same goes for the reservoir in Arlington, but access to the park itself must remain open for the general public, regardless of residency (again, they can restrict parking to residents only). I've walked through Wright's Park many times while hiking around the Fells, so I assume access to the park itself is unimpeded. Adding to that the DCR is title holder to the land that constitutes Wright's Park, including the pond, so I assume the City of Medford and the Commonwealth have some sort of lease agreement, and that DCR is aware of Medford's management of the park (again, keyword: assume). Tying this to the broader subject, parks and roadways are public spaces where access can't be restricted, recreational and many other municipal facilitates are not. I suppose a city council chamber, selectmen's room or, auditorium hosting a town meeting falls somewhere in between, however they should probably fall under the public space category, even if the rest of a city or town hall itself doesn't.
How about 15 years for
How about 15 years for spreading fake news about our leaders?
Time out for petulant
Time out for petulant children so the adults in the room can conduct business.
Is that Freud?
She seems big on waving that picture - who is it a picture of?
Looks like it's a pocket Constitution, because of course it is.
Your Echo Chamber
I went to a restaurant in the Seaport last night, and there was one customer out of 100 or so who was wearing a mask. I figured he was one of you UHub people.
That recess music was pretty
That recess music was pretty awesome.