IS IT MALICIOUS INTENT?
The ACLU website states:
“Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is “the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.”
“The American Civil Liberties Union has been involved in virtually all of the landmark First Amendment cases to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains absolutely committed to the preservation of each and every individual’s freedom of expression.”
“The emergence of these self-styled fascist groups raised the issue of whether the First Amendment protected hate speech. The ACLU concluded that, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, defending ‘freedom for the thought we hate’ is not only necessary but vital to upholding the principles of the First Amendment. The ACLU has held to that position ever since, most notably in a 1978 case involving the right of neo-Nazis to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois.”
https://www.aclu.org/
Supreme Court position:
“In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.”
To provide some context, African Americans and Black people have been subjected to racist rhetoric for hundreds of years even up until today, even from a former and potential future President. The ACLU has even defended the right to free speech for the KKK. Whether you agree or disagree it is one of the founding principles of this country. These are the rules of the land. My father told me years ago, if you don’t like the rules in my house then leave. I left and moved into my own apartment. just saying.
Council members often proclaim to love the diversity that Englewood offers until that diversity disagrees with their personal views. Diversity is a beautiful thing but it comes with challenges. Those challenges include different needs, different desires AND differing points of view.
If council members do not have the emotional intelligence to be able to empathize with others and make equitable decisions taking into consideration the needs and wants of others outside of their personal opinions and circles, then perhaps being on the city council in a city like Englewood is not for them.
With that being said, the 1st amendment also affords council members the right to free speech as well; however as elected officials they are in fact held to a higher standard. They must give consideration to the thought that just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should. Council members, who sit in positions of leadership, must think about the impact of their comments on the community as a whole. Will their words advance the community or further divide it? Will their words cause members of the community additional pain in an already tense environment or will their words bring some sort of consolation or reinforcement that in America everyone and their opinions matter?
I would advise, respectfully, that Councilwoman Wisotsky tread carefully. Knowingly making statements that would incite anger, fear, anxiety, and even violence, while attempting to blatantly violate a citizens first amendment right to free speech is clearly a display of malicious intent. Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. Councilwoman Wisotsky is dangerously close to inciting imminent criminal activity.
Every statement doesn’t need a response. Sometimes silence is the best response in the interest of public safety(physically, mentally, and emotionally). Seems like good judgement and common sense is clearly not so common anymore. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Bailey to issue a formal opinion as the city attorney so that council can draft an ordinance that will guide council and Mayor on what they should or should not be saying from the dais.
I empathize with the innocent Israeli people who were attacked and kidnapped on Oct 7 just as I empathize with the innocent Palestinian people who have been killed and displaced. I recognize that hurt people, hurt people, but leadership must stop perpetuating this “us" vs. them” climate. We are all victims of some form of discrimination. The elephants are fighting and the grass is getting trampled, but the fact is there is nothing we can do about it at a local level.
The issue is beyond our scope. Perhaps it is best to keep international issues out of local government.
Perhaps it is also best to keep personal agendas and grievances out of local government.
The council’s job is to govern the City of Englewood and from what I can see there has been very little governance happening over the last several years. It really is okay to agree to disagree.
Let’s get back to the business of running the city. In case you forgot, here are a few of the many local issues, in no particular order;
- Bernard Placide Jr. (what action has been taken by the Council?)
- community center,
- parks in disrepair,
- Recreation Dept,
- Lawsuits,
- flooding/Infrastructure,
- MOA with the School District
- Use of Tryon Pool Agreement
- Exterior Lighting around dark City buildings (the garage)
- HR policies/actions.
- The Overlay Zone Debacle
- Traffic
- Bergen PAC and SID
- Open Gym
- Civics In Our Schools
Signed: Amy Jones Bulluck, Constitutionally entitled and empowered!!!
Introduction, design: Lucy D. Walker
