07-05-2025
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.
