Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

Today, I came upon a NewYorkTimes article titled “Residents’ Rights to Be Rude Upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court.” The ruling settled a conflict between the town of Southborough’s “civility code” for public comment at meetings and Ms Louise Barron who had said to a town board member, “Look, you need to stop being a Hitler. You’re a Hitler. I can say what I want.”

Ms Louise Barron

The Southborough’s civility code required “respectful and courteous” discourse “free of rude, personal or slanderous remarks.” Leading up to the high point of the conflict, Ms Barron had accused the town board members of “…spending like drunken sailors,” and breaking the law by limiting her speech. A board member expressed that she was starting to “slander” the town officials and indicated that if she continued with such words he would move to end the open comment section of the meeting. It was at this point that Ms Barron made the Hitler comments, and then the committee members agreed to end this part of the meeting.

It’s awfully expensive settling these issues in court. Therefore, it might be worthwhile for us to take a few minutes to look at the court’s reasoning, and then consider what preventative path we might wish to wisely choose to avoid getting embroiled in such conflicts.

The Court’s Reasoning

According to the New York Times:

John and Samuel Adams

Decorum, the new decision concluded, was not a top priority for the cousins John and Samuel Adams when they drafted Article 19 in the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1780. By laying out the right to request “redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer,” the justices noted, they aimed to protect the colonists’ freedom to rail against King George III, disparaged at the time as “the Royal Brute,” in a profane and ungracious manner.

The Southborough Town House, where the town’s board of selectmen meets. Credit…Sophie Park for The New York Times

“There was nothing respectful or courteous about the public assemblies of the revolutionary period,” the court wrote in its opinion. “There was also much that was rude and personal, especially when it was directed at the representatives of the king and the king himself.”

“…..The court found that her reference to Hitler was “certainly rude and insulting,” but was protected speech nonetheless. The town’s insistence on civility “appears to cross the line into viewpoint discrimination: allowing lavish praise but disallowing harsh criticism of government officials,” the ruling said.

“Although civility can and should be encouraged in political discourse,” the justices wrote, “it cannot be required.”

As I read the court’s decision, I found myself frustrated that it relies so much on the reasoning of people who thought about this issue over two hundred years ago. At the same time, I do have a great deal of respect for the principle of freedom speech. I also realize that if enough people object to this court ruling, there is a democratic process that allows for changing the constitution. Making such a change would be a lengthy process. In the meantime, how might those who lead periods of public open comments prepare for the likelihood of being insulted?

Suggestions For Dealing With Insults

Given this ruling, a license for disrespectful language is now on the books. Public figures, therefore, are going to have to figure out ways to skillfully handle this. The Times article offered a suggestion on how to go about doing so.

To encourage civil behavior, “treat people civilly in the first place, and in a way that they perceive to be fair.” For example, imagine the difference if a board member, instead of getting defensive, said, “This person is not feeling heard,” and then said, “Tell us more.” This suggestion is a good start for thinking about how to wisely move forward in a positive manner, but in my opinion needs elaboration.

Although the justices wrote that “civility can and should be encouraged in political discourse,” the Times article is not as clear as I would like. How precisely this might be done without violating their ruling that this cannot be required? Here’s my suggestion.

Immediately prior to each meeting’s public comment period, the chairperson would make the following statement–“We now invite public comments. We would greatly appreciate it if all of your comments are phrased civilly and respectfully.” Although not all will comply, I think encouraging this is worth the effort.

The Times article seems to suggest a specific type of response from a board member to an insult–“The person is not feeling heard. Tell us more.” From my experience, just making this type of suggestion to board members, sound as it is, may work to some degree, but to really increase the likelihood of this occurring when board members are in the midst of a heated personal attack, I recommend three practice sessions lasting half an hour each. Each session would begin with someone reading Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “If.”

Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you   

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too;   

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise,

….

After these two readings at each of the three practice sessions a board member, while being video recorded, would pretend to insult another board member, and the person receiving the insult would try to respond civilly and fairly. Then the whole board would critique the response. By going through this process a few times at each of the three sessions, it would enormously increase the likelihood of each board member skillfully handling these challenging situations.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful.

My Best,
Jeff

conflict resolutionDealing with insultsemotional intelligenceFree SpeechMassachusetts Supreme Court decisionpublic comments rulesRude