13 January—Atty. Eric Brown, in his “Legal Business” column in yesterday’s Sunday Republican, “Trampling the First Amendment means bowing to authoritarianism,” lamented: “In Watertown, any citizen who wants to speak at a Town Council meeting must now sign a contract agreeing to ‘not raise my voice,’ ‘not use lewd, slanderous, or libelous language,’ and ‘not speak about Town personnel matters,’ including the ‘performance of named Town employees.’”

Obviously Atty. Brown overstated the case in order to make a point. Right? Because even Watertown, about which one can’t say little enough, wouldn’t insult its citizens—or anyone else—by severely and arbitrarily restricting their right to comment and criticize in a public forum.

But, incredible as it may seem to intelligent, reasonable people who respect the Constitution and each other, Atty. Brown wasn’t in fact overstating anything. Because the nitwits who reign over Watertown actually came up with their asinine insult to the First Amendment less than a month ago. It’s for real! And here it is, in all its obscene glory, the “Watertown Town Council Public Participation Form”:

Eric opines, “This all seems like a clear restraint on free speech rights.” Of course it is. But the Watertown councilmen will argue that they’re merely trying to expedite meetings and maintain civility. Perhaps that too. But so what?! Not that it should matter—and it’s no defense of the Watertown council’s sick joke intended only to save itself embarrassment—but while the public participation contract clearly is a restraint, it’s not an outright prohibition. While there’s certainly no lack of virtual soapboxes these days, there’s nothing like the immediacy, the involvement of an actual in-person meeting. And to restrict that in any way—even if not unlawful or unconstitutional—is a disgrace pure and simple.

“So what is going on?” Eric asks. “Why are we trying to squelch public participation and public discussion about local government?” Even if the question is rhetorical, the answer is obvious—and it’s not just about local government. Public participation—the sine qua non of the democratic process—is an inconvenience to efficient government. Period. And even our beloved Constitution does its best to limit public participation. The First Amendment may be explicit about expression, but it’s only implicit about participation. James Madison and the boys knew precisely what they were doing. (And even the explicit parts are honored as much in their breach as in their observance.)

Anyway, can’t you just imagine how the contract to stifle speech will be enforced by bouncers at town meetings and fines? It’s as unenforcible as it’s indefensible. Indeed, the absurd contract would be laughable if it weren’t so depressingly portentous. Sadly, Watertown isn’t first nor alone. And it’s not only our speech rights that are being eroded subtly and insidiously . . .