Manchester aldermen approve rule change to allow vulgar language at meetings
Speakers participating in the public comment portion of aldermen meetings in Manchester can now use vulgar language or profanity if they choose — though city officials hope they won't.
Manchester aldermen voted 8-6 Tuesday to adopt changes suggested by The New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC) to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen's Rule 3, amended last year to say that 'speakers shall be civil in their language and presentation. Profanity, threats, and the use of vulgar language or fighting words are prohibited.'
'A woman who spoke earlier said people have told her to 'blank' herself,' NEFAC President Greg Sullivan, an attorney who regularly represents the Union Leader, told aldermen Tuesday. 'And that's respectful, and that's what we hope citizens of Manchester will continue to be, but as currently standing, rule three will not pass constitutional muster.'
The rule was amended last spring, after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted aldermen meetings starting in February, bringing one session to a halt with loud chants of 'Free Free Palestine' and 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' The group demanded a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.
The new changes approved Tuesday night say 'speakers are encouraged to be civil in their language and presentation. True threats and the use of fighting words are prohibited, in addition to any and all speech or actions which violate any applicable law. During public comment, speakers shall only address the Chair. The audience shall likewise not engage any conduct that would prevent the Public Participation sessions from occurring or would otherwise violate any applicable law.'
'The First Amendment protects the speech that we hate, and I can give you examples from across the country and from the Supreme Court where there is vulgarity that's been protected,' Sullivan said. 'We certainly, as a coalition, do not condone it. We hope that it is never a problem for this board or the mayor, but to me, it is a matter of constitutional law that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society or the government finds that idea or that speech offensive or disagreeable.'
Former New Hampshire Union Leader journalist Mark Hayward first sounded the alarm regarding Rule 3 several weeks ago. On Tuesday, he urged aldermen not to add the job of 'speech police' to their plates.
'Terms like profanity, vulgarities, language — they're vague, they're ambiguous, they're open to interpretation,' Hayward said. 'A few months ago, a guy who speaks here, Glenn, was up here. I remember because I was here and he used the word 'poo.' He was describing what was coming out of his sewer pipes into his sink. Now what if he used — Glenn, who's a stand-up guy — what if he used the 'CR' word or the 'SH' word, and you shut him down?
'You'd be saying that, hey, gutter language is more important than gutter-borne diseases.'
Alderman Tony Sapienza argued that, constitutional or not, 'it's a bad look for us to limit people's speech.'
'If somebody wants to come here and use profanities, they're going to look like a knucklehead, that's the penalty they're going to pay,' Sapienza said. 'But I've been here for 10 years. You're the third mayor. I've served under every single mayor from either party, and people come up and say all kinds of nasty things to them. That's part of the job, you know? All of a sudden, we got to have this big reaction, because some people came here and expressed themselves. This is America last I knew.'
Alderman Crissy Kantor supported leaving Rule 3 as written.
'I believe in freedom of speech, but everyone deserves to feel safe,' Kantor said. 'My Jewish friends did not feel safe coming here last year. You know, they couldn't come and voice their concerns. This is real, this was not okay, and I'm sticking with leaving it the way it is.'
A motion to receive and file the suggested changes failed on a 6-8 vote, with aldermen Dan Goonan, Pat Long, Christine Fajardo, Sapienza, Jim Burkush, Bill Barry, Dan O'Neil and Joe Kelly Levasseur opposed.
A later motion to adopt the changes, with those same aldermen voting in the affirmative.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others
Trump travel ban includes 12 nations, partially restricts entry from seven others Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump bans travel from several countries around the world President Donald Trump signed a proclamation that bans travel from 12 countries and restricts seven others. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump has issued a full travel ban blocking the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries into the United States, reviving a controversial policy from his first term that is likely to be challenged in court. Trump cited "national security risks" posed by citizens of the targeted nations, which include several Middle Eastern and African countries, in a June 4 proclamation he signed imposing the ban. He also partially restricted the entry of foreign nationals from seven other nations. The restrictions are scheduled to go into effect on June 9. The ban prohibits entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump issued partial travel suspensions for foreign nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Trump presidency: Marco Rubio says US will revoke visas from Chinese students, add new restrictions In videotaped remarks from the Oval Office, Trump pointed to last weekend's fiery assault on pro-Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, carried out by suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a native of Egypt who came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in late 2022 and stayed after the visa expired. "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas," Trump said. "We don't want them." Egypt is not among the countries facing new restrictions despite Trump invoking the attack, which the White House has blamed on the Biden administration's immigration policies. Trump's travel ban: A timeline look throughout his first presidency Who faces a travel ban? The move comes after the Trump administration has worked aggressively to deport immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully, halted the government's refugee resettlement program, and last week announced plans to "aggressively" revoke visas of Chinese students. The ban resembles similar actions Trump took during his first term to bar the entry of foreign nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries. The restrictions do not apply to visas that have already been granted, lawful permanent residents, certain athletes, immediate family members of current visa holders, and other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. Travelers react to the latest travel ban from President Trump "Pros and cons." Travelers in Los Angeles responded to the news of President Donald Trump's travel ban impacting nearly 20 countries. "In the 21st century, we've seen one terror attack after another carried out by foreign-visa overstayers from dangerous places. They should not be in our country," Trump said. "We will not let what happened in Europe happen to America." Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad said the government already vets visa applicants extensively. The new order risks separating families, depriving students of educational opportunities and blocking patients from unique medical treatment, he said. "President Trump's new travel ban targeting mostly Muslim and African nations and raising the specter of more vague free speech restrictions is overbroad, unnecessary and ideologically motivated,' Awad said. "Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer." Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said in a post on social media that the antisemitic attack in Boulder shouldn't be used to justify a ban on travel from primarily Muslim-majority countries. 'We'll keep saying it: the Jewish community's legitimate fears and concerns should not (be) exploited to undermine core democratic norms, or otherwise advance discriminatory & unconstitutional policies,' Spitalnick said. 'Doing so only makes Jews – and all communities – less safe.' Rep. Judy Chu, a California Democrat who introduced legislation in February that sought to prevent the Trump administration from banning travel to the U.S. by people of any religious group, lashed out at Trump on X. "Just now, Trump has re-issued his disgusting, bigoted, and Islamophobic travel ban. This goes against our core American values while doing nothing to make us safer. We can do better, we must do better," she said. What travelers need to know: Trump issues new travel ban affecting nearly 20 countries Trump revisits travel bans Trump's first-term travel bans were overturned repeatedly in the courts for apparent religious or racial motivations before being upheld by the Supreme Court. Within hours of the new ban, the International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, slammed the ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the United States for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States." "It is yet another shameful attempt by the Trump administration to sow division, fear, and chaos," Stephanie Gee, senior director of U.S. Legal Services, said in a statement. Trump's latest ban follows through on a day-one executive order directing his administration to identify countries throughout the world "for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." Trump said he evaluated recommendations from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi based on foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals and largely accepted their recommendations. Factors included whether a county "has a significant terrorist presence within its territory" or a high rate of people overstaying their visas, Trump's order said. The president said the administration also considered a country's "cooperation with accepting back its removable nationals." At one point, the administration looked at slapping as many as 43 countries with restrictions. Egypt was not on either of the draft lists that circulated in March. The president said in the order that Rubio and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller provided him a list on April 9 of countries to consider. The White House did not immediately explain why it took Trump nearly two months after he received the report to take action. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. "Very simply," Trump said, "we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States." Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
