Town Day Lacks Free Speech Thanks To Chamber Restrictions

A Letter to the Editor From Christopher Whitney:

I have just learned that the Executive Director of the Stoneham Chamber of Commerce has issued new rules for Town Day exhibitors which constitute serious restrictions on our most vital First Amendment right of freedom of speech in a traditional public forum, namely our Town Common.

The rules now provide in particular that:

No materials that can be perceived as negative or an attack on an individual and/or a group will be permitted to be posted and/or distributed. You may not distribute handouts anywhere but your assigned space. If you or one of your helpers is found distributing handouts, soliciting signatures, etc. outside of your designated space, you will all be asked to leave immediately.

I have been reading about restrictions on free speech on college campuses, but I never thought it would happen here in Stoneham. Freedom of speech includes the right to express all views by all people both negative and positive statements. The Chamber of Commerce operates Town Day on the Town
Common which is a traditional public forum where residents are entitled to freedom of speech under both the federal and state constitutions.

The facts are the new Executive Director of the Chamber happens to be Meghan Day, the wife of State Representative and Attorney Michael Day who is up for re-election this November. Mr. Day was also the subject of criticism for voting for a 40% pay raise for himself as one of his first acts of the Legislature last year.

Maybe his wife is hoping people forget or she doesn’t want the voting public reminded. You would think that Mrs. Day would know better in her new role as Executive Director. Certainly, Mr. Day whose oath of office requires him to uphold the Constitution should know better. I feel this is an attempt of Mrs. Day to abuse her official position to assist her husbands reelection bid and conceal her husband’s voting record by restricting our rights to freedom of speech.

The order from Mrs. Day explicitly states that anything perceived negative or an attack on an individual will not be permitted. The question I have is who decides? Does Mrs. Day get to decide that criticism of husbands voting record is “negative”? Will she be allowed to violate the Constitution to protect her husband
from criticism? Mrs. Day was very angry last year when her husbands voting record was available for folks to see. She is trying to silence us this year and I feel using her position in the Chamber to do so.

Regardless what side of the aisle you may be on, no one’s free speech should be stifled for any reason let alone for political reasons. As a matter of fact, free speech protections are heightened in the political arena. Many people in our town feel like a small group of lawyers, politicians and the boards THEY control are running the town for their own benefit at the expense of the rights of residents, and this latest travesty is a example of how they abuse their positions to advance their own political agenda.

Christopher Whitney